Opinion ID: 2357769
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: If pro se parties make allegations of domestic violence the superior court must inquire into the allegations and allow the parties to present evidence regarding the allegations.

Text: In Parks v. Parks , we concluded that AS 25.24.150(g) requires trial courts to consider alleged incidents of domestic violence and that it is appropriate to question the pro se litigants about facts relevant to the issue to determine whether an alleged event was an incident of domestic violence. [45] We reaffirm this position here and conclude that it was error not to give Williams an opportunity to put forth evidence to support her allegations. In Parks, a husband admitted during a custody hearing that he had thrown water in his wife's face; the trial court found that this was not an incident of domestic violence for purposes of triggering the statutory presumption against custody because there was no evidence that the wife was afraid. [46] We clarified on appeal that the water-throwing would constitute domestic violence if the husband was attempting to place his wife in fear of imminent physical injury. [47] We then remanded to the superior court for additional findings, explaining: Alaska Statute 25.24.150(g) requires trial courts to consider alleged incidents of domestic violence, and here the trial court was in a position to question the pro se litigants about facts relevant to the issue. On remand, the trial court should solicit from the parties the information it needs to determine whether the water-throwing incident was an act of domestic violence.[ [48] ] In this case, Williams's pleadings to the superior court contained numerous allegations of domestic abuse. Williams detailed in her motion to modify custody that during their marriage Barbee had anger issues and that arguments would end with Barbee abusing Williams, including choking, hitting, kicking, and throwing Williams to the ground. Yet, the superior court did not take testimony from Williams about the individual incidents alleged in her motion to modify custody. [49] Nor did the trial court ask Williams to provide additional information that would have allowed the court to determine whether the alleged events were acts of domestic violence. [50] The superior court should have inquired into the details of the events and provided an opportunity for Williams to present evidence in support of her allegations of abuse in order to determine whether the events were acts of domestic violence. We remand for the superior court to allow and evaluate such evidence.