Opinion ID: 2357769
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The superior court must make express findings regarding whether Barbee has a history of perpetrating domestic violence.

Text: Williams maintains on appeal that Barbee has a history of domestic violence as evidenced by his conviction and his own testimony and that the trial court recognized that Mr. Barbee has a history of domestic violence. Citing to the same page of the transcript as Williams, Barbee responds that the superior court found that he did not have a history of domestic violence, and so did not have to address the statutory presumption against custody. The transcript suggests that neither party is entirely correct  the superior court did not make any express finding regarding a history of perpetrating domestic violence under AS 25.24.150(h). While the trial court's dialogue did include the phrase history of domestic violence, read in context, it appears that the term history of domestic violence referred to the best interests of the child criteria found at AS 25.24.150(c)(7) rather than a separate analysis under subsection .150(h). [36] We have held that when the record shows that domestic violence has occurred and the trial court so finds, it is plain error for the court not to make findings as to whether the domestic violence amounted to a history of perpetrating domestic violence. [37] In Puddicombe v. Dreka , we concluded that it was error for the superior court to fail to evaluate whether there was a history under AS 25.24.150(h) after the court found when discussing the seventh best interests factor that both parties had engaged in domestic violence. [38] The evidence of domestic violence in Puddicombe consisted of plaintiff's allegations (presented without witness testimony) that defendant punched, sexually assaulted, choked, and threatened to kill her along with extensive testimony about several altercations that occurred between the parties, though most of the evidence regarding physical violence was from the parties themselves and was highly contested. [39] Even so, because the superior court found that domestic violence had occurred, it was required to explicitly address whether it was serious enough to be a history of perpetrating domestic violence under the definition set out in subsection .150(h). [40] Addressing this same issue, we recently concluded that a trial court must determine whether domestic violence amounted to a history under AS 25.24.150(h) even when evidence of domestic violence is less overwhelming than in Puddicombe. [41] In Michele M. v. Richard R . the superior court did not find any relevant, recent domestic violence incidents and may have implicitly determined that [defendant's] past acts of domestic violence were neither numerous nor significant and so did not amount to a `history of perpetrating domestic violence.' [42] Still, we remanded, stating that it was plain error for the court not to further determine whether [defendant's] previous acts of domestic violence constituted a history under the statute. [43] We hold today that where a superior court finds that domestic violence occurred, it must make express findings regarding whether the incident or incidents of domestic violence constitute a history of perpetrating domestic violence under AS 25.24.150(h). At the June 24, 2009 hearing, the superior court made some comments about both the single substantiated incident and Williams's other alleged incidents but did not expressly state whether they amounted to a statutorily defined history of abuse. First, the court referred to the incident that resulted in Barbee's assault conviction and recognized that it was one really big deal incident here where you choked her terribly. Crucially, however, the superior court did not explain whether chok[ing] her terribly amounted to causing a serious physical injury such that the single incident constituted a history under subsection .150(h). Serious physical injury in the context of the presumption against awarding custody means physical injury caused by an act performed under circumstances that create a substantial risk of death; or physical injury that causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body member or organ, or that unlawfully terminates a pregnancy. [44] The absence of a finding in this case is especially problematic because Williams claimed that she feared for her life during the incident, and the charging document, which was based upon a review of [the] police report indicates: [Williams] reported that her husband tackled her from behind and put her in a headlock. She said that he used both arms and strangled her to the point she thought she would lose consciousness. She stated that after he let go, she began vomiting and had difficulty breathing. She stated that her voice was hoarse and continued to have trouble swallowing on the morning of the 18th when she called the police. The officer observed that she had pet[e]chia on her neck and behind both ears. The officer noted what appeared to be blood pooled behind both of her lower eyelids and red marks on her right arm and wrist. On remand the superior court must make an explicit finding whether this choking incident, standing alone, amounts to a history of domestic violence under AS 25.24.150(h). We next turn to Williams's many additional allegations of domestic violence in her pleadings to the superior court. Even if the superior court determines on remand that the single choking incident did not amount to a history of domestic violence, if Williams's evidence warrants a finding that there were additional incidents of domestic violence, then there was a history of perpetrating domestic violence, and the superior court must address the rebuttable presumption against custody.