Misyura v. Misyura
242 P.3d 1037
| Alaska | 2010Background
- Sergey MISYURA and Lyudmila MISYURA separated during divorce; three children involved (Karina, David, Jessica).
- Trial court found a history of domestic violence by Sergey and awarded Lyudmila sole custody under AS 25.24.150(g).
- Trial court allowed unsupervised visits for Sergey to the extent in Lyudmila's discretion and permitted conditioning visits on batterers’ intervention per Lyudmila.
- Magistrate previously issued a long-term protective order in Lyudmila's favor after alleged incidents; Sergey did not appeal that order.
- On appeal, Sergey challenged the presumption under AS 25.24.150(g), denial of overnight visits, and delegation to Lyudmila to impose batterers’ intervention as a visitation condition; supreme court affirmed custody but reversed and remanded visitation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly applied AS 25.24.150(g) presumption. | Misyura argues no history satisfying the presumption. | Lyudmila contends the trial court properly found multiple acts of domestic violence. | Presumption valid; history found not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether overnight visitation was properly denied or limited. | Sergey contends he should have overnight visits. | Court allowed unsupervised visits with Lyudmila's discretion. | Issue not reached on merits; no overnight visitation determination on appeal. |
| Whether delegation to Lyudmila to condition visitation on batterers’ intervention was proper. | Delegation improperly gave Lyudmila authority to require batterers’ program. | Court permitted conditioning but did not delegate this decision properly. | Delegation to Lyudmila to require intervention program was error; remand for court to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008) (history of domestic violence triggers testing under AS 25.24.150)
- Elton H. v. Naomi R., 119 P.3d 969 (Alaska 2005) (appellate standard for custody factual findings)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2007) (particular deference to trial court's credibility findings)
- Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005) (particular deference to trial judge on witness credibility)
- Borg-Warner Corp. v. Avco Corp. (Lycoming Div.), 850 P.2d 628 (Alaska 1993) (collateral estoppel considerations in discretionary rulings)