Solomon v. Solomon
420 P.3d 1234
Alaska2018Background
- Terrace and Wendy Solomon divorced after separating in Dec 2014; the superior court bifurcated issues and reserved custody for a later trial.
- Terrace, then a U.S. Army soldier, was arrested and confined at Fort Leavenworth; repeated pretrial continuances were granted while defense counsel sought to contact him and arrange telephonic participation.
- After roughly a year of delays, the court set a firm trial date; on the day of trial Fort Leavenworth would not arrange Terrace’s telephonic appearance and defense counsel moved for a continuance, which the court denied for lack of demonstrated diligence.
- Wendy testified at the short custody trial (Terrace absent but represented); she described multiple violent incidents and other misconduct by Terrace; defense counsel cross-examined but presented no additional witnesses.
- The superior court found Terrace had a history of domestic violence (more than one incident) and awarded Wendy sole legal and physical custody, ordering Terrace’s contact limited to screened letters and requiring compliance with AS 25.24.150(h) remedies before custody could be reconsidered.
- On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed denial of the last continuance but vacated the domestic-violence finding and remanded for more specific findings necessary for appellate review; all other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Terrace) | Defendant's Argument (Wendy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a day-of-trial continuance was an abuse of discretion | Court erred; denial prejudiced Terrace because he could not appear telephonically from military prison | Denial proper; extensive prior continuances and counsel lacked diligence in securing military coordination | Denial affirmed: court acted within discretion given counsel’s lack of due diligence and prior court warnings |
| Whether the court had adequate record/factual basis to find a history of domestic violence | Record inadequate to meaningfully assess credibility; insufficient specific findings as to incidents | Wendy’s live testimony (credited by court) established multiple incidents supporting the presumption | Domestic-violence determination vacated and remanded: record supported credibility but superior court failed to make sufficiently specific findings to permit appellate review |
| Whether live-testimony-only trial (with absent parent represented by counsel) deprived court of ability to assess credibility | Presence of only one witness and absent parent left court without sufficient basis to judge credibility | Live testimony and cross-examination allowed the court to observe demeanor and test reliability | Rejected: court could assess credibility from live testimony and cross-examination; credibility determinations are for the trial court |
| Whether deficient domestic-violence findings were harmless given other custody grounds | Terrace argued any error was harmless because custody decision was otherwise supported (prison sentence, concession on physical custody) | Court’s imposition of statutory burdens under AS 25.24.150(h) materially affected Terrace’s future custody rights | Not harmless: vacatur required because the domestic-violence finding imposed durable statutory burdens and merits specific findings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Shooshanian v. Dire, 237 P.3d 618 (Alaska) (standard of review for denial of continuance)
- Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, 643 P.2d 985 (Alaska) (continuance diligence and prejudice principles)
- Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054 (Alaska) (movant’s burden to show due diligence for continuances)
- Johnson v. Schaub, 867 P.2d 812 (Alaska) (reversing denial of continuance where record showed no abuse of trial process)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 299 P.3d 170 (Alaska) (continuance reversal where trial court failed to address pertinent scheduling/availability argument)
- Faye H. v. James B., 348 P.3d 876 (Alaska) (requirement for express findings when court finds domestic violence occurred)
- Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska) (need for findings on whether conduct meets elements of domestic-violence crimes)
- Price v. Eastham, 128 P.3d 725 (Alaska) (trial court’s primary role to judge witness credibility)