Faye H. v. James B.
348 P.3d 876
Alaska2015Background
- Faye and James were unmarried parents who separated after their daughter Hannah’s birth; both sought protective orders and custody.
- A 2011 long-term protective order found James committed or attempted "assault or reckless endangerment" and imposed a no-contact provision; the order did not specify multiple incidents.
- Criminal charges against James (including violating the protective order and abuse allegations concerning a third child) were filed but did not result in convictions; some charges were dismissed.
- At the custody trial the superior court found James had physically abused Faye but concluded the abuse "was not of a degree or frequency" (and was "not continuous") so as not to trigger the statutory domestic-violence custody presumption, and awarded joint physical custody and sole legal custody to Faye.
- The Supreme Court held the superior court’s findings were ambiguous about whether James engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence (one statutory trigger) and remanded for specific findings on that question and related factual matters (e.g., possible no-contact violations, digital-media intrusion, and prior abuse allegations) as needed to decide whether the rebuttable presumption applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Faye) | Defendant's Argument (James) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rebuttable presumption of AS 25.24.150(g) applies because James has a “history of perpetrating domestic violence” | James committed multiple physical assaults on Faye (Faye testified to at least three acts); presumption should apply | Court below found abuse but ruled it was not "of a degree or frequency" to trigger the presumption | Remanded: superior court’s findings were insufficiently specific as to whether James committed more than one incident; must make express findings on that point |
| Whether superior court erred by focusing on "continuity" rather than statutory tests (serious injury in one incident or more than one incident) | Court must apply statutory definition, not a continuity standard | Court relied on its characterization that abuse was not continuous and no serious injury | Held that focusing on "continuous" abuse is improper; court must apply AS 25.24.150(h) and make express findings whether statutory triggers are met |
| Whether alleged acquisition/access of Faye’s digital media constitutes a crime involving domestic violence relevant to the presumption | James accessed Faye’s emails, texts, and nude photos over years—this may be another domestic-violence incident | James says many photos/texts were voluntarily sent; disputed facts | Record underdeveloped on whether digital-media access is a crime involving domestic violence; superior court should consider this on remand if relevant |
| Whether evidence of alleged abuse of others (ex-wife, third child) should be considered in assessing a "history" | Prior abuse allegations against ex-wife and abuse accusations concerning a child are relevant to history of domestic violence | James denies those allegations; some evidence excluded at trial; criminal proceedings did not produce convictions | Issues about ex-wife and child abuse were either waived or unsupported on this appeal, but trial court should consider credible evidence of other incidents on remand if relevant to the statutory history inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010) (trial courts must make specific findings when domestic violence is found to determine whether statutory presumption applies)
- Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008) (remand required where court acknowledged domestic-violence problems but failed to determine whether a statutory “history” exists)
- Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009) (court must make findings regarding alleged violation of protective order when relevant to domestic-violence analysis)
- Yelena R. v. George R., 326 P.3d 989 (Alaska 2014) (standard of review: findings on domestic violence are factual and reviewed for clear error; legal application of presumption reviewed de novo)
- Latham v. Palin, 251 P.3d 341 (Alaska 2011) (collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues actually determined in prior proceedings)