Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.20.140 (2026)
Action for failure to permit visitation with minor child
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.20.140. Action for failure to permit visitation with minor child.
(a) When a court order is specific as to when a custodian of a minor child must permit another person to have visitation with that child, and the custodian fails, wilfully and without just excuse, to permit visitation with the child in substantial conformance with the court order, the person entitled to visitation has a separate cause of action against the custodian for damages.
(b) The amount of damages recoverable under this section is $200 for each failure of the custodian, wilfully and without just excuse, to permit visitation with the child for substantially the length of time and substantially in the same manner as specified in the court order. This amount may not be increased or decreased once liability has been established. The custodian is not liable for more than one failure in respect to what is, under the court order, a single continuous period of visitation. The prevailing party in an action commenced under this section is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney fee.
(c) As used in this section,
(1) “court order” means a decree, judgment, or order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) “custodian” means a natural person who has been awarded custody, either temporary or permanent, of a minor child;
(3) “just excuse” includes illness of the child which makes it dangerous to the health of the child for visitation to take place in conformance with the court order; “just excuse” does not include the wish of the child not to have visitation with the person entitled to it.
Chapter 23. Adoption.
(a) When a court order is specific as to when a custodian of a minor child must permit another person to have visitation with that child, and the custodian fails, wilfully and without just excuse, to permit visitation with the child in substantial conformance with the court order, the person entitled to visitation has a separate cause of action against the custodian for damages.
(b) The amount of damages recoverable under this section is $200 for each failure of the custodian, wilfully and without just excuse, to permit visitation with the child for substantially the length of time and substantially in the same manner as specified in the court order. This amount may not be increased or decreased once liability has been established. The custodian is not liable for more than one failure in respect to what is, under the court order, a single continuous period of visitation. The prevailing party in an action commenced under this section is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney fee.
(c) As used in this section,
(1) “court order” means a decree, judgment, or order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) “custodian” means a natural person who has been awarded custody, either temporary or permanent, of a minor child;
(3) “just excuse” includes illness of the child which makes it dangerous to the health of the child for visitation to take place in conformance with the court order; “just excuse” does not include the wish of the child not to have visitation with the person entitled to it.
Chapter 23. Adoption.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Smith v. Groleske, 196 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2008).
Smith v. Groleske, 196 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2008). “Two months later Joseph requested sance-tions under AS 25.20.140 1 and AS 25.20.115 2 *1104 after Kathleen caused him to miss a two-and-one-half-hour visitation with the children.”
Susan M. v. Paul H., 362 P.3d 460 (Alaska 2015). “Approximately two months later-and shortly-before the end of the 2013-14 school year-Susan filed a motion seeking sanctions against Paul under AS 25.20.140, 4 alleging that Paul had willfully and without just excuse denied her visitation.”
Kessler v. Kessler, 827 P.2d 1119 (Alaska 1992). “Guided by the standard in AS 25.20.140 (formerly AS 25.24.300), [2] we held that attorney's fees should only be awarded against a party who brings such an action "willfully and without just excuse.”
Mendel v. Felbert, 897 P.2d 68 (Alaska 1995). “In this action George asserted various claims for custodial interference in violation of AS 25.20.140, common law interference with custodial rights, conspiracy to interfere with custodial rights, the tort of outrage, conspiracy to cause intentional infliction of emotional…”
Elizabeth R. Lestenkof v. Barry P. Lestenkof, Sr. (Alaska 2012). “The superior court found that Elizabeth had failed to timely return two children to Barry after the 2009 summer visitation and awarded Barry $400 in damages under AS 25.20.140;1 the court found that Barry had failed to timely send the two children to Elizabeth for summer 2010…”
Amye Wallace v. John O'Hara (Alaska 2025). “1 See AS 25.20.140 (allowing damages action when court finds that a party fails, “wilfully and without just excuse, to permit visitation with the child for substantially the length of time and substantially in the same manner as specified in the court order”).”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.140(b) — 1 case
Smith v. Groleske, 196 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2008). “Two months later Joseph requested sance-tions under AS 25.20.140 1 and AS 25.20.115 2 *1104 after Kathleen caused him to miss a two-and-one-half-hour visitation with the children.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.140(c)(1) — 1 case
Smith v. Groleske, 196 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2008). “Two months later Joseph requested sance-tions under AS 25.20.140 1 and AS 25.20.115 2 *1104 after Kathleen caused him to miss a two-and-one-half-hour visitation with the children.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.140(c)(3) — 2 cases
Susan M. v. Paul H., 362 P.3d 460 (Alaska 2015). “Approximately two months later-and shortly-before the end of the 2013-14 school year-Susan filed a motion seeking sanctions against Paul under AS 25.20.140, 4 alleging that Paul had willfully and without just excuse denied her visitation.”
Elizabeth R. Lestenkof v. Barry P. Lestenkof, Sr. (Alaska 2012). “The superior court found that Elizabeth had failed to timely return two children to Barry after the 2009 summer visitation and awarded Barry $400 in damages under AS 25.20.140;1 the court found that Barry had failed to timely send the two children to Elizabeth for summer 2010…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.