Williams v. Barbee
243 P.3d 995
| Alaska | 2010Background
- Parents Barbee and Williams share custody of De'Shawn since 2008; Williams planned to move to Washington in 2009, prompting a custody modification request.
- Barbee pleaded guilty to third-degree domestic-violence assault from a 2007 incident; the court found evidence of domestic violence influencing custody.
- Superior Court held the child’s best interests favored Barbee if Williams moved out of Alaska, but otherwise kept the existing shared arrangement.
- Trial court considered AS 25.24.150 factors and found one factor favoring Williams (domestic violence) and one factor (stability/continuity) favoring Barbee; ordered primary custody to Barbee upon Williams’s relocation.
- Williams sought reconsideration; the court remanded for explicit findings on whether Barbee has a “history of perpetrating domestic violence” under AS 25.24.150(h).
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the custody award and remanded to determine the history of domestic violence and apply the presumption if appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presumption against custody applies in modification proceedings | Williams: presumption applies | Barbee: presumption not triggered | Presumption applies in modification proceedings |
| Whether the court must make express findings on a history of domestic violence | Williams: history existed; need explicit findings | Barbee: history not found; no need for specific findings | Court must make explicit AS 25.24.150(h) findings and treat accordingly |
| Whether the court failed to inquire into pro se domestic-violence allegations | Williams: court should solicit details and allow evidence | Barbee: not necessary | Error not to inquire; remand to assess evidence and determine history |
| How best interests factors should be weighed given pending findings | Williams: domestic-violence factor should weighed strongly | Barbee: stability/continuity just as important | Remand to reevaluate factor weights in light of explicit findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Puddicombe v. Dreka, 167 P.3d 73 (Alaska 2007) (must address history of domestic violence when DV is found)
- Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008) (remand when history of domestic violence not explicitly found)
- Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010) (requires explicit history findings after DV is found)
- Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009) (pro se parties; courts must consider alleged DV incidents)
- Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (framework for best interests analysis)
- Blanton v. Yourkowski, 180 P.3d 948 (Alaska 2008) (continuity/stability not dispositive in relocation cases)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107 (Alaska 2002) (guides consideration of modifications and original findings)
- Chesser-Witmer v. Chesser, 117 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2005) (change-in-circumstances analysis in custody)