Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150 (2026)
Judgments for custody; supervised visitation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.24.150. Judgments for custody; supervised visitation.
(a) In an action for divorce or for legal separation, for placement of a child when one or both parents have died, or as part of a child-in-need-of-aid proceeding for a child in state custody under AS 47.10, the court may, if it has jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300 — 25.30.320, and is an appropriate forum under AS 25.30.350 and 25.30.360, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of a child of the marriage, make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with the minor child that may seem necessary or proper, including an order that provides for visitation by a grandparent or other person if that is in the best interests of the child. The court shall hear custody proceedings related to a child in state custody under AS 47.10 as part of the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, as provided under AS 47.10.113, unless notice is provided to all parties to the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings and no party objects to hearing the custody proceedings in another appropriate forum.
(b) If a guardian ad litem for a child is appointed, the appointment shall be made under the terms of AS 25.24.310(c).
(c) The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child under AS 25.20.060 — 25.20.130. In determining the best interests of the child the court shall consider
(1) the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child;
(2) the capability and desire of each parent to meet these needs;
(3) the child's preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference;
(4) the love and affection existing between the child and each parent;
(5) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child, except that the court may not consider this willingness and ability if one parent shows that the other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged in domestic violence against the parent or a child, and that a continuing relationship with the other parent will endanger the health or safety of either the parent or the child;
(7) any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents;
(8) evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child;
(9) other factors that the court considers pertinent.
(d) In awarding custody the court may consider only those facts that directly affect the well-being of the child.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of (d) of this section, in awarding custody the court shall comply with the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 1901 — 1963 (P.L. 95-608, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978).
(f) If the issue of child custody is before the court at the time it issues a judgment under AS 25.24.160, the court shall concurrently issue a judgment for custody under this section unless, subject to AS 25.24.155, the court delays the custody decision for a later time.
(g) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child.
(h) A parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section if the court finds that, during one incident of domestic violence, the parent caused serious physical injury or the court finds that the parent has engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence. The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrating parent has successfully completed an intervention program for batterers, where reasonably available, that the parent does not engage in substance abuse, and that the best interests of the child require that parent's participation as a custodial parent because the other parent is absent, suffers from a diagnosed mental illness that affects parenting abilities, or engages in substance abuse that affects parenting abilities, or because of other circumstances that affect the best interests of the child.
(i) If the court finds that both parents have a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall either
(1) award sole legal and physical custody to the parent who is less likely to continue to perpetrate the violence and require that the custodial parent complete a treatment program; or
(2) if necessary to protect the welfare of the child, award sole legal or physical custody, or both, to a suitable third person if the person would not allow access to a violent parent except as ordered by the court.
(j) If the court finds that a parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall allow only supervised visitation by that parent with the child, conditioned on that parent's participating in and successfully completing an intervention program for batterers, and a parenting education program, where reasonably available, except that the court may allow unsupervised visitation if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the violent parent has completed a substance abuse treatment program if the court considers it appropriate, is not abusing alcohol or psychoactive drugs, does not pose a danger of mental or physical harm to the child, and unsupervised visitation is in the child's best interests.
(k) The fact that an abused parent suffers from the effects of the abuse does not constitute a basis for denying custody to the abused parent unless the court finds that the effects of the domestic violence are so severe that they render the parent unable to safely parent the child.
(l) Except as provided in AS 25.20.095 and 25.20.110, a court may not consider a parent's activation to military service and deployment in determining the best interest of the child under (c) of this section. In this subsection, “deployment” has the meaning given in AS 25.20.095.
(a) In an action for divorce or for legal separation, for placement of a child when one or both parents have died, or as part of a child-in-need-of-aid proceeding for a child in state custody under AS 47.10, the court may, if it has jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300 — 25.30.320, and is an appropriate forum under AS 25.30.350 and 25.30.360, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of a child of the marriage, make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with the minor child that may seem necessary or proper, including an order that provides for visitation by a grandparent or other person if that is in the best interests of the child. The court shall hear custody proceedings related to a child in state custody under AS 47.10 as part of the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, as provided under AS 47.10.113, unless notice is provided to all parties to the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings and no party objects to hearing the custody proceedings in another appropriate forum.
(b) If a guardian ad litem for a child is appointed, the appointment shall be made under the terms of AS 25.24.310(c).
(c) The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child under AS 25.20.060 — 25.20.130. In determining the best interests of the child the court shall consider
(1) the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child;
(2) the capability and desire of each parent to meet these needs;
(3) the child's preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference;
(4) the love and affection existing between the child and each parent;
(5) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child, except that the court may not consider this willingness and ability if one parent shows that the other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged in domestic violence against the parent or a child, and that a continuing relationship with the other parent will endanger the health or safety of either the parent or the child;
(7) any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents;
(8) evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child;
(9) other factors that the court considers pertinent.
(d) In awarding custody the court may consider only those facts that directly affect the well-being of the child.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of (d) of this section, in awarding custody the court shall comply with the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 1901 — 1963 (P.L. 95-608, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978).
(f) If the issue of child custody is before the court at the time it issues a judgment under AS 25.24.160, the court shall concurrently issue a judgment for custody under this section unless, subject to AS 25.24.155, the court delays the custody decision for a later time.
(g) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child.
(h) A parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section if the court finds that, during one incident of domestic violence, the parent caused serious physical injury or the court finds that the parent has engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence. The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrating parent has successfully completed an intervention program for batterers, where reasonably available, that the parent does not engage in substance abuse, and that the best interests of the child require that parent's participation as a custodial parent because the other parent is absent, suffers from a diagnosed mental illness that affects parenting abilities, or engages in substance abuse that affects parenting abilities, or because of other circumstances that affect the best interests of the child.
(i) If the court finds that both parents have a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall either
(1) award sole legal and physical custody to the parent who is less likely to continue to perpetrate the violence and require that the custodial parent complete a treatment program; or
(2) if necessary to protect the welfare of the child, award sole legal or physical custody, or both, to a suitable third person if the person would not allow access to a violent parent except as ordered by the court.
(j) If the court finds that a parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall allow only supervised visitation by that parent with the child, conditioned on that parent's participating in and successfully completing an intervention program for batterers, and a parenting education program, where reasonably available, except that the court may allow unsupervised visitation if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the violent parent has completed a substance abuse treatment program if the court considers it appropriate, is not abusing alcohol or psychoactive drugs, does not pose a danger of mental or physical harm to the child, and unsupervised visitation is in the child's best interests.
(k) The fact that an abused parent suffers from the effects of the abuse does not constitute a basis for denying custody to the abused parent unless the court finds that the effects of the domestic violence are so severe that they render the parent unable to safely parent the child.
(l) Except as provided in AS 25.20.095 and 25.20.110, a court may not consider a parent's activation to military service and deployment in determining the best interest of the child under (c) of this section. In this subsection, “deployment” has the meaning given in AS 25.20.095.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 344
cases (74 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017).
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “” 43 Because there was no allegation that Timothy had caused anyone serious physical injury, to conclude that AS 25.24.150© applied the trial court had to find that Timothy had engaged in “more than one incident of domestic violence” against a “domestic living partner.”
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Stephanie F. v. George C., 270 P.3d 737 (Alaska 2012). “150(g)-(h) as preventing it from considering any of the best interests factors in AS 25.24.150 other than George's history of domestic violence.”
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Mallory D. v. Malcolm D., 290 P.3d 1194 (Alaska 2012). “The court correctly stated, "AS 25.24.150()(1) does not address the situation before the court, where neither party is less likely to perpetrate the violence than the other party.”
Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008). “At the end of the hearing, the court awarded primary physical and sole legal custody to Richard based on the factors listed in AS 25.24.150 and made its interim order permanent.”
Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010). “In 2004 the legislature added several subsections to the child custody statute, AS 25.24.150. 11 One of the additions, subsection (g), "creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint legal or physical custody to a parent who 'has a history of perpetrating…”
In Re the Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017). “See AS 25.24.150(a), authorizing courts to "make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with” a minor child "[i]n an action for divorce or for legal separation.”
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017). “In relocation cases the superior court must assess first the legitimacy of the move and then the child’s best interests under AS 25.24.150(c). 16 If the reasons for moving are legitimate, then “there is no presumption favoring either, parent when the court considers the child’s…”
Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1999). “Under AS 25.24.150(c), a court determining child custody must consider a number of specified factors relating to the best interests of the child.”
Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009). “" Throwing water at Tracy was therefore "domestic violence" within the meaning of, AS 25.24.150 if Robert, in doing so, "attempted" to place her in fear of imminent physical injury.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(1) — 1 case
Puddicombe v. Dreka, 167 P.3d 73 (Alaska 2007).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(3) — 1 case
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “” 43 Because there was no allegation that Timothy had caused anyone serious physical injury, to conclude that AS 25.24.150© applied the trial court had to find that Timothy had engaged in “more than one incident of domestic violence” against a “domestic living partner.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(G) — 3 cases
Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010). “In 2004 the legislature added several subsections to the child custody statute, AS 25.24.150. 11 One of the additions, subsection (g), "creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint legal or physical custody to a parent who 'has a history of perpetrating…”
Morris v. Horn, 219 P.3d 198 (Alaska 2009).
Rancourt v. Bolger (D. Alaska 2023).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(L) — 1 case
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(a) — 25 cases
Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011).
Judd v. Burns, 397 P.3d 331 (Alaska 2017).
Amy S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 440 P.3d 273 (Alaska 2019).
In Re the Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017). “See AS 25.24.150(a), authorizing courts to "make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with” a minor child "[i]n an action for divorce or for legal separation.”
Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 (Alaska 1989).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(a)(4) — 1 case
Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(b) — 13 cases
Sarah D. v. John D., 352 P.3d 419 (Alaska 2015).
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Yelena R. v. George R., 326 P.3d 989 (Alaska 2014).
Faye H. v. James B., 348 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2015).
Dale H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 235 P.3d 203 (Alaska 2010).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c) — 237 cases
In Re the Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017). “See AS 25.24.150(a), authorizing courts to "make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with” a minor child "[i]n an action for divorce or for legal separation.”
Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1999). “Under AS 25.24.150(c), a court determining child custody must consider a number of specified factors relating to the best interests of the child.”
Virgin v. Virgin, 990 P.2d 1040 (Alaska 1999).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(1) — 69 cases
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008). “At the end of the hearing, the court awarded primary physical and sole legal custody to Richard based on the factors listed in AS 25.24.150 and made its interim order permanent.”
Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014).
Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1999). “Under AS 25.24.150(c), a court determining child custody must consider a number of specified factors relating to the best interests of the child.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(2) — 44 cases
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Karrie B. Ex Rel. Reep v. CATHERINE J., 181 P.3d 177 (Alaska 2008).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Mallory D. v. Malcolm D., 290 P.3d 1194 (Alaska 2012). “The court correctly stated, "AS 25.24.150()(1) does not address the situation before the court, where neither party is less likely to perpetrate the violence than the other party.”
Sharon Thompson v. Everett Thompson, 454 P.3d 981 (Alaska 2019).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(3) — 50 cases
McLane v. Paul, 189 P.3d 1039 (Alaska 2008).
Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9 (Alaska 2002).
Duffus v. Duffus, 932 P.2d 777 (Alaska 1997).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(4) — 27 cases
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011).
Karrie B. Ex Rel. Reep v. CATHERINE J., 181 P.3d 177 (Alaska 2008).
Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2007).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(5) — 85 cases
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1999). “Under AS 25.24.150(c), a court determining child custody must consider a number of specified factors relating to the best interests of the child.”
Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018).
Brett M. v. Amanda M., 445 P.3d 1005 (Alaska 2019).
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(6) — 91 cases
Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V., 319 P.3d 219 (Alaska 2014).
Puddicombe v. Dreka, 167 P.3d 73 (Alaska 2007).
Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V., 274 P.3d 1185 (Alaska 2012).
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Smith v. Weekley, 73 P.3d 1219 (Alaska 2003).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(7) — 58 cases
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017). “In relocation cases the superior court must assess first the legitimacy of the move and then the child’s best interests under AS 25.24.150(c). 16 If the reasons for moving are legitimate, then “there is no presumption favoring either, parent when the court considers the child’s…”
Harris v. Governale, 311 P.3d 1052 (Alaska 2013).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(8) — 32 cases
Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Lewis G. v. Cassie Y., 426 P.3d 1136 (Alaska 2018).
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Co v. Matson, 313 P.3d 521 (Alaska 2013).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(9) — 27 cases
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005). “The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children’s best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). 10 In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant…”
Pingree v. Cossette, 424 P.3d 371 (Alaska 2018).
Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001).
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107 (Alaska 2002).
Nelson v. Nelson, 263 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2011).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(d4) — 1 case
Dragseth v. Dragseth, 210 P.3d 1206 (Alaska 2009).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(l) — 4 cases
Melendrez v. Melendrez, 143 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2006).
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017). “In relocation cases the superior court must assess first the legitimacy of the move and then the child’s best interests under AS 25.24.150(c). 16 If the reasons for moving are legitimate, then “there is no presumption favoring either, parent when the court considers the child’s…”
Jaymot v. Skillings-Donat, 216 P.3d 534 (Alaska 2009).
Kenneth S. v. Beulah E. (Alaska 2015).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(d) — 17 cases
Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001).
Nelson v. Nelson, 263 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2011).
Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365 (Alaska 2019).
Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018).
Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(e) — 5 cases
In Re the Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017). “See AS 25.24.150(a), authorizing courts to "make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with” a minor child "[i]n an action for divorce or for legal separation.”
Duffus v. Duffus, 932 P.2d 777 (Alaska 1997).
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997). “Although the court did not expressly *138 cite AS 25.24.150(c), it addressed the statutory factors that were, in context of the record in this case, pertinent and potentially determinative.”
Vachon v. Pugliese, 931 P.2d 371 (Alaska 1996).
J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409 (Alaska 1996).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(e)(1) — 2 cases
Siekawitch v. Siekawitch, 956 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1998).
I.J.D. v. D.R.D., 961 P.2d 425 (Alaska 1998).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(e)(2) — 2 cases
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017). “In relocation cases the superior court must assess first the legitimacy of the move and then the child’s best interests under AS 25.24.150(c). 16 If the reasons for moving are legitimate, then “there is no presumption favoring either, parent when the court considers the child’s…”
Schaeffer-Mathis v. Mathis, 407 P.3d 485 (Alaska 2017).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(f) — 1 case
Sloane v. Sloane, 18 P.3d 60 (Alaska 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(g) — 104 cases
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “” 43 Because there was no allegation that Timothy had caused anyone serious physical injury, to conclude that AS 25.24.150© applied the trial court had to find that Timothy had engaged in “more than one incident of domestic violence” against a “domestic living partner.”
Stephanie F. v. George C., 270 P.3d 737 (Alaska 2012). “150(g)-(h) as preventing it from considering any of the best interests factors in AS 25.24.150 other than George's history of domestic violence.”
Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009). “" Throwing water at Tracy was therefore "domestic violence" within the meaning of, AS 25.24.150 if Robert, in doing so, "attempted" to place her in fear of imminent physical injury.”
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010). “In 2004 the legislature added several subsections to the child custody statute, AS 25.24.150. 11 One of the additions, subsection (g), "creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint legal or physical custody to a parent who 'has a history of perpetrating…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(h) — 62 cases
Stephanie F. v. George C., 270 P.3d 737 (Alaska 2012). “150(g)-(h) as preventing it from considering any of the best interests factors in AS 25.24.150 other than George's history of domestic violence.”
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010). “First, the legislative history behind AS 25.24.150(¢g) strongly indicates that the legislature intended for the presumption to apply in modification proceedings.”
Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008). “At the end of the hearing, the court awarded primary physical and sole legal custody to Richard based on the factors listed in AS 25.24.150 and made its interim order permanent.”
John E. v. Andrea E., 445 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2019).
Faye H. v. James B., 348 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2015).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(i) — 7 cases
Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365 (Alaska 2019).
Dennis O. v. Stephanie O., 393 P.3d 401 (Alaska 2017).
Mallory D. v. Malcolm D., 290 P.3d 1194 (Alaska 2012). “The court correctly stated, "AS 25.24.150()(1) does not address the situation before the court, where neither party is less likely to perpetrate the violence than the other party.”
Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651 (Alaska 2020).
Dennis Q. v. Monika M. (Alaska 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(i)(1) — 4 cases
Mallory D. v. Malcolm D., 290 P.3d 1194 (Alaska 2012). “The court correctly stated, "AS 25.24.150()(1) does not address the situation before the court, where neither party is less likely to perpetrate the violence than the other party.”
Dennis Q. v. Monika M. (Alaska 2014).
Sheri-Louise A. v. Barry A. (Alaska 2024).
Marybeth J. v. Troy T. (Alaska 2023).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(i)(2) — 1 case
Dennis Q. v. Monika M. (Alaska 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(j) — 20 cases
Timothy W. v. Julia M., 403 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2017). “” 43 Because there was no allegation that Timothy had caused anyone serious physical injury, to conclude that AS 25.24.150© applied the trial court had to find that Timothy had engaged in “more than one incident of domestic violence” against a “domestic living partner.”
Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010). “In 2004 the legislature added several subsections to the child custody statute, AS 25.24.150. 11 One of the additions, subsection (g), "creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint legal or physical custody to a parent who 'has a history of perpetrating…”
Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365 (Alaska 2019).
Regina C. v. Michael C., 440 P.3d 199 (Alaska 2019).
John E. v. Andrea E., 445 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2019).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(k) — 4 cases
Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202 (Alaska 2014).
Caroline J. v. Theodore J., 354 P.3d 1085 (Alaska 2015).
Jill Y. v. Casey Y., 463 P.3d 833 (Alaska 2020).
Kelly D. v. Anthony K. (Alaska 2019).
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.