Fidler v. Fidler, 296 P.3d 11

Colleen filed for domestic violence protective orders on Dec 22, 2011, leading to a 20-day ex parte order.
A long-term protective order with interim custody was consolidated with divorce/custody proceedings.
Trial was scheduled for Mar 9, 2012, but the court canceled it and set a status conference; telephonic appearance planned from another city.
Thomas appeared unprepared for trial; his counsel had not appeared; the court denied a continuance.
The trial court found Thomas unlawfully entered Colleen’s home and violated the ex parte order; it issued a long-term protective order with contact limits and custody arrangements.
On appeal, the court vacated the long-term order, remanded for further proceedings, and noted no retained jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of a continuance an abuse of discretion?	Fidler argues denial prejudiced substantial rights.	The court trusted orderly proceedings; continuance not warranted.	Yes; abuse of discretion (vacate/remand).
Did due process require a continuance or adequate notice/preparation?	Fidler contends insufficient notice and preparation time.	Proceedings proceeded with notice and telephonic setup.	Vacatur/remand; due process concerns acknowledged.
Should the long-term protective order be vacated and remanded?	Fidler seeks reversal to allow fair adjudication.	Court must correct trial deficiencies; modify measures if needed.	Vacated and remanded; no retained jurisdiction.

Husseini v. Husseini, 230 P.3d 682 (Alaska 2010) (treating a purported appeal as petition for review to avoid hardship)
Shooshanian v. Dire, 237 P.3d 618 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Siggelkow; due process and notice considerations)
Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, 643 P.2d 985 (Alaska 1982) (principles on due process and notice; abuse of discretion standard)