451 P.3d 365
Alaska2019Background
- Joy and Everett separated after a turbulent marriage; they share a ten‑year‑old son. Interim orders found Everett had committed domestic violence and limited him to supervised visitation pending completion of a batterers’ intervention program.
- Everett sought intake at LEAP’s batterers’ program; LEAP’s director (Lisa Hay) concluded Everett was a victim of coercive control by Joy and was unsuitable for the batterers’ group, recommending counseling instead.
- A court‑appointed custody investigator reached similar conclusions: Joy was controlling, engaged in stalking/harassment and coercive control, and the child’s emotional needs were not being met in Joy’s care; the investigator recommended Everett receive sole legal and primary physical custody and that Joy undergo CBT.
- At trial the superior court reaffirmed its finding that Everett had a history of perpetrating domestic violence but found the incidents were situational; it concluded Everett overcame the statutory presumption against awarding custody and awarded him sole legal and primary physical custody, with supervised visits for Joy until she substantially completed recommended therapy.
- Joy appealed, arguing (1) Everett did not meet the statutory requirement of completing a batterers’ intervention program, (2) the court mischaracterized domestic violence and overrelied on experts, (3) the best‑interests analysis was flawed, and (4) conditioning her unsupervised visitation on therapy was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joy) | Defendant's Argument (Everett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presumption against awarding custody to a parent with a history of perpetrating domestic violence may be rebutted without completing a batterers’ intervention program | The statute requires successful completion of an intervention program; Everett did not complete one | The court may consider other evidence (including a credible intake finding that he was a victim and unsuitable for the program) under Stephanie F. | Court: Presumption can be overcome by means other than program completion; intake finding that Everett was unsuitable because he was a victim supported rebuttal |
| Whether the court improperly minimized Everett’s domestic‑violence history and misapplied the statutory standard | The court downplayed Everett’s violence to lower the rebuttal burden and relied excessively on experts’ redefinitions | Trial courts may consider the nature and situational character of violent acts when assessing future risk and presumption applicability | Court: No error — it permissibly considered situational nature and seriousness of incidents |
| Whether awarding sole custody to Everett (including relocating child) was against the child’s best interests | Joy: She was primary caregiver; removing the child from Kotzebue and disrupting school/community was harmful; court overrelied on investigator/Hay | Everett: Investigator and LEAP evidence showed Joy’s coercive behavior harmed the child’s emotional needs; Everett was better able to meet child’s needs | Court: No clear error or abuse of discretion — best‑interests factors support award to Everett |
| Whether conditioning Joy’s unsupervised visitation on completion of therapy was an abuse of discretion | Joy: Investigator lacked clinical qualifications to prescribe CBT and court relied improperly on her recommendations | Everett: Court has broad discretion to condition visitation and the investigator’s recommendations provided a reasonable remediation plan | Court: No abuse of discretion — conditioning on substantial completion of evaluation/CBT was permissible and implementable |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephanie F. v. George C., 270 P.3d 737 (Alaska 2012) (statute permits rebuttal by means other than completion of a batterers’ program; trial court must assess whether alternative treatment suffices)
- Mallory D. v. Malcolm D., 290 P.3d 1194 (Alaska 2012) (trial courts should assess qualitative nature and seriousness of domestic violence, not just count incidents)
- Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010) (legislative purpose of custody presumption is child protection and reducing placement where domestic violence exists)
- Sagers v. Sackinger, 318 P.3d 860 (Alaska 2014) (affirming conditioning unsupervised visitation on psychological evaluation when evidence supports risk)
- Georgette S.B. v. Scott B., 433 P.3d 1165 (Alaska 2018) (trial court may lay out a plan by which a parent can regain unsupervised visitation)