Vince B. v. Sarah B., 425 P.3d 55

Former spouses Vince and Sarah share custody of two children; relations were hostile after separation and divorce, including prior physical and verbal incidents.
Sarah filed an April 2016 domestic violence petition alleging Vince kneed her at a school event and committed other harassing acts; the court denied that petition but warned Vince further misconduct could lead to a stalking order.
After escalating hostile emails and a Christmas Eve phone call, Vince followed Sarah to her boyfriend’s house with their son, knocked on the door briefly, and left; Sarah called troopers and filed a second petition alleging stalking.
A magistrate issued a short ex parte protective order; at the contested hearing the court accepted counsel’s proffer of what Vince’s ten‑year‑old son would testify and ultimately spared the child from testifying in open court.
The superior court found a course of conduct (including the prior kneeing, driving‑bys, emails, and the driveway incident) that recklessly placed Sarah in fear of physical injury and granted a long‑term domestic violence protective order for second‑degree stalking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vince)	Defendant's Argument (Sarah)	Held
Excluding child testimony / due process	Court misled him into not calling son and thus deprived his defense	Court merely assumed son’s testimony and properly spared him trauma; proffered facts were considered	No due process violation; court did not abuse discretion and considered proffered testimony
Ripeness of prior warning	May 2016 warning was an unripe, prognosticative ruling barring later action	Warning was not a binding ruling but admonition that repeat conduct could cross statutory threshold	No ripeness problem; warning was a caution, not a judicial determination
Res judicata / relitigation of earlier denial	Prior denial of April petition precludes relying on that conduct in new petition	Stalking analysis requires examining course of conduct including prior acts; denial of earlier relief didn’t preclude consideration	Res judicata inapplicable; court may consider past incidents in determining a course of conduct
Sufficiency of findings for stalking	Incidents were consensual custody contacts; court relied improperly on earlier kneeing and lacked findings that December acts caused fear	Context (prior violence, no‑contact orders, escalating threats) made driveway contact nonconsensual and frightening; statute requires course‑of‑conduct analysis	Findings not clearly erroneous; record supports nonconsensual contacts and reasonable fear under course‑of‑conduct standard

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for procedural due process balancing)
McComas v. Kirn, 105 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2005) (prior protective‑order denials do not automatically preclude later orders when new conduct is shown)
Helen S.K. v. Samuel M.K., 288 P.3d 463 (Alaska 2012) (trial court has discretion to control manner of child testimony; summary of in‑camera interviews can satisfy due process)
Cooper v. Cooper, 144 P.3d 451 (Alaska 2006) (standard of review for protective order decisions: abuse of discretion)
McAlpine v. Pacarro, 262 P.3d 622 (Alaska 2011) (elements of res judicata and applicability to family law contexts)