John E. v. Andrea E., 445 P.3d 649

Background

Parents divorced; Andrea (mother) had sole legal and primary physical custody by 2015 after prior findings against John (father); John later completed a DV program.
On June 30, 2017 Andrea struck their older daughter (age 12) repeatedly with a belt; parties’ accounts differed on severity, number of blows, and whether Andrea hit the child in the face or put hands on her neck.
The child left Andrea’s home the next day and lived with John; John took the child to a psychologist and to a hospital, and obtained an ex parte protective order.
At the October 2017 evidentiary hearings the superior court excluded the psychologist’s testimony because John lacked legal authority to bring the child for counseling and the visit was viewed as litigation-driven.
The superior court found the incident to be a single excessive disciplinary episode (not serious physical injury or multiple DV incidents), retained custody with Andrea, limited John to four unsupervised hours per week, and issued a narrow long‑term protective order forbidding further domestic violence, stalking, or harassment.
On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court vacated the custody decision and remanded, holding exclusion of the psychologist was an abuse of discretion; it otherwise affirmed the court’s statutory findings about domestic violence but noted deficiencies in the visitation explanation and addressed waiver of one motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (John)	Defendant's Argument (Andrea)	Held
Exclusion of psychologist's testimony	Testimony was relevant to child's best interests and admissible despite custody dispute over who authorized visit	John lacked legal authority; visit was litigation-driven so testimony should be excluded as sanction	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; psychologist's testimony could affect best‑interests analysis — custody vacated and remanded
Whether child's injuries were "serious physical injury" under AS 25.24.150(h)	Emotional and protracted injuries from beating met the statutory "serious physical injury" standard	Injuries were bruises/scratches, no broken bones or permanent impairment; not "serious physical injury"	Court did not err: injuries did not meet criminal-code definition of "serious physical injury" (no substantial risk of death or protracted disfigurement/impairment)
Whether the June 30 episode constituted more than one incident of domestic violence	Interruptions during the beating (phone inspection, shower, juice incident) created multiple incidents/pattern triggering the presumption	The conduct was a single 30‑minute excessive disciplinary episode, not a repetitive pattern	Held single incident for statute’s purposes; legislature intended "more than one incident" to capture habitual/repetitive domestic violence
Restriction of John's visitation to four hours/week	Restriction unjustified given recent periods of custody; court must explain severe visitation limits	Limit appropriate based on safety/history; court considered best‑interest factors	Visitation decision lacked adequate explanation; remand noted because court must state reasons when severely limiting visitation
Long‑term protective order scope	Order too toothless if only reiterates law	Narrow order prohibiting further domestic violence, stalking, harassment is permissible	Protective order not an abuse of discretion; wording was not impermissibly vague
Motion to suspend Andrea's supervised visitation	Trial court erred by denying motion to suspend visitation pending therapist approval	Motion was moot when court ruled; John did not object at the time	Argument waived: John accepted court's statement that motion was moot and failed to preserve or brief error

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Phillips, 959 P.2d 1247 (Alaska 1998) (treating physicians and overlap of expert/fact witness testimony)
Thompson v. Cooper, 290 P.3d 393 (Alaska 2012) (experience‑based expert testimony from treating providers)
Griffith v. Taylor, 12 P.3d 1163 (Alaska 2000) (review of custody‑order enforcement for abuse of discretion)
del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2016) (abuse of discretion standard in custody enforcement)
Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013) (best interests standard paramount in custody determinations)
Starkweather v. Curritt, 636 P.2d 1181 (Alaska 1981) (paramountcy of child's best interests)
Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009) (domestic‑violence presumption and statutory interpretation)
Faye H. v. James B., 348 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2015) (review standards for DV findings and application of presumption)
Johnson v. State, Dep't of Corr., 380 P.3d 653 (Alaska 2016) (statutory interpretation and independent review of legal questions)
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017) (requirement for trial court explanation when severely limiting visitation)