Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 P.3d 660

In August 2016 John obtained a 20-day domestic violence protective order after an alleged incident at the family cabin; a hearing on a long-term order was scheduled.
The district court extended the 20-day order through a continued hearing date; Robin claims she never received notice of the extension.
On September 5, 2016 Robin texted John about the family dog; John replied that she was violating the protective order.
The court denied assault findings but granted a 2016 long-term protective order because the texts violated the no-contact provision; the superior court affirmed and the Alaska Supreme Court denied review.
In October 2017 the superior court issued a second long-term protective order based on the same 2016 texting incident; Robin appealed.
While that appeal was pending the superior court dissolved the 2017 order as unlawfully based solely on the same conduct as the earlier order (relying on Whalen), and the legislature later amended the protective-order statutes in response to Whalen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robin)	Defendant's Argument (John / Respondent)	Held
Validity of 2016 long-term order	2016 order was improperly granted, violated due process, and necessity defense should have been allowed	2016 order is final and was properly issued; Robin had full opportunity to litigate	Court: barred by res judicata — issues already finally decided on appeal
Validity of 2017 long-term order	2017 order is invalid because it was based solely on the same 2016 conduct; asks reversal and expungement	2017 order was dissolved by superior court; no effective relief available from this appeal	Court: challenge to 2017 order is moot because superior court dissolved it
Public-interest exception to mootness	The issue affects many protective-order cases and merits appellate resolution	The question already decided in Whalen and legislative amendments have largely mooted the issue	Court: public-interest exception does not apply; issue now largely historical
Collateral-consequences exception (reputational harm / expungement)	Continued public record stigmatizes Robin; asks appellate court to clear her name or expunge record	Superior court granted dissolution but denied expungement under Admin. Rule 40; appellate court cannot grant expungement here	Court: reputational claim insufficient to overcome mootness; recommends Rule 40 be reviewed for narrow relief but expresses no view on merits

Whalen v. Whalen, 425 P.3d 150 (Alaska 2018) (second long-term order cannot be based solely on the same conduct underlying an earlier order)
Ruerup v. Ruerup, 408 P.3d 1203 (Alaska 2018) (long-term protective order is a final, appealable order)
Cooper v. Cooper, 144 P.3d 451 (Alaska 2006) (standard of review for protective orders: abuse of discretion)
Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191 (Alaska 1995) (limitations on declaratory relief and mootness principles)