Opinion ID: 6536625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court's Rulings On The Long-Term Domestic Violence Order And Motion To Modify Custody

Text: The superior court delivered an oral ruling at the close of the hearings, and later issued written orders. It issued a long-term domestic violence protective order with only one provision: that Andrea not threaten to commit or commit acts of domestic violence, stalking, or harassment. In its custody order the court made the following findings about Andrea's assault of her daughter: that Andrea hit [the child] with her hands and then several times with the belt on the legs and arms after she refused to give Andrea the passcode to her cell phone; that once she obtained access to the phone, Andrea resumed hitting [the child] with the belt; that the child suffered facial bruising, but that it was unclear whether this was caused by intentional or accidental contact; and that the younger daughter was in the same room during most of the confrontation between Andrea and [her sister]. The court rejected Andrea's argument that her assault was reasonable corporal punishment. But it likewise rejected John's argument that the assault constituted two distinct incidents of domestic violence or that it resulted in serious physical injury to the child. The court explained that the various acts of violence were all part of one excessive disciplinary episode and that they did not create a substantial risk of [the child's] death or cause her to suffer protracted disfigurement or impairment of health, as  was required to find a single incident of domestic violence serious enough to trigger the presumption. 5 The court thus declined to apply the domestic violence presumption in AS 25.24.150(g). It explained that Andrea's single incident of domestic violence was instead to be considered when weighing the best interest factors of AS 25.24.150(c). The court found the assault troubling, but concluded that Andrea's violence had a more understandable origin than [did] John's repeated behaviors - presumably referring to John's multiple assaults of Andrea and other disruptive behavior since their divorce. The court found that Andrea's assault on her older daughter damaged their relationship at a time when it needed to be strong and trusting, but that John was also causing harm to the child by manipulating [his] relationship [with her] to get revenge on Andrea. The court ultimately concluded that Andrea is more able to meet each child's daily emotional and medical needs. The court found it significant that the children ha[d] been living with Andrea for a greater period of time in the past two years than they had with John. The court noted the older daughter expressed a fear of returning to Andrea's home. But it did not view her expressions of fear as mature, thought out expressions of a preference to live with one parent rather than the other but instead as evidence of her need for help relating with her mother. The court awarded Andrea sole legal and primary physical custody of the children, and ordered that John have unsupervised visitation with the children for four hours every week. The court recognized that the older daughter need[ed] time and assistance to restore her relationship with Andrea and that Andrea needed to develop more appropriate strategies for dealing with her misbehavior. Accordingly the court ordered that Andrea should arrange for counseling for the child and engage in anger management and parenting counseling herself. The court ordered that neither parent should use corporal punishment on the children. John now appeals the superior court's long-term domestic violence protective order and its 2017 custody order.