Stephanie F. v. George C.
270 P.3d 737
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Stephanie F. and George C. separated in 2006 with two children, Elizabeth (b. 1999) who has Nonverbal Learning Disorder and Brian (b. 2002) who does not have special needs.
- The superior court found two acts of domestic violence by George—one involving pinning Stephanie and the other punching a door—triggering AS 25.24.150(g)'s presumption against custody.
- Stephanie sought sole custody; George sought shared or sole custody and participated in therapy, while Stephanie relocated the children to Anchorage in 2008.
- The court initially treated the presumption as potentially unconstitutional and crafted a ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ standard to overcome it, ultimately awarding George custody.
- The final 2010 order granted George sole legal and physical custody, but the court remanded to determine whether George’s non-batterers-intervention steps could rebut the presumption under AS 25.24.150(g)-(h) and to reassess best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presumption against custody due to domestic violence was properly triggered. | Stephanie contends George’s acts constituted domestic violence triggering the presumption. | George acknowledges the wrist-pin incident but argues some acts do not constitute DV; other acts may. | Yes; the two acts qualify as domestic violence, triggering the presumption. |
| Whether completion of a batterers' intervention program is the only way to rebut the presumption. | AS 25.24.150(h) requires batterers' program completion as the sole rebuttal method. | Statutory text and history allow other rebuttal means where reasonably available. | No; the presumption may be rebutted by means other than completing a batterers' intervention program. |
| Whether the best-interests analysis was properly conducted notwithstanding the presumption. | Stephanie argues the court overemphasized scheduling issues and undervalued violence history. | Court properly weighed Elizabeth’s needs and parents’ abilities; violence history was one factor among many. | The court did not abuse its discretion; best-interests analysis supported George’s custody. |
| Whether the decision implicates due process or constitutional concerns and requires remand. | Stephanie argues the statute is unconstitutional as applied if best-interests cannot be considered. | Statute allows rebuttal and full best-interests analysis; no due process violation. | No constitutional violation; remand to determine rebuttal via means other than a batterers’ program. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997) (recognizes harms of witnessing domestic violence on children)
- Puddicombe v. Dreka, 167 P.3d 73 (Alaska 2007) (presumption considerations in domestic violence custody cases)
- Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010) (cites need to address presumption and proof under AS 25.24.150(g)-(h))
- Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010) (legislative history supporting rebuttal options beyond batterers' program)
- Misyura v. Misyura, 242 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2010) (overcoming presumption through non-program steps; confirms flexible rebuttal approach)
- Hughes v. State, 56 P.3d 1088 (Alaska App. 2002) (definition of domestic violence includes acts against jointly owned property)