Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490 (2026)
Warrant to take physical custody of child
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.30.490. Warrant to take physical custody of child.
(a) On the filing of a petition seeking enforcement of a child custody determination, the petitioner may file a verified application for the issuance of a warrant to take physical custody of the child if the child is imminently likely either to suffer serious physical harm or to be removed from this state.
(b) If the court, on the testimony of the petitioner or other witness, finds that the child is imminently likely to suffer serious physical harm or to be removed from this state, it may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child. The petition must be heard on the next judicial day after the warrant is executed unless that date is impossible. In that event, the court shall hold the hearing on the first judicial day possible. The application for the warrant must include the statements required for petitions under AS 25.30.460(b).
(c) A warrant to take physical custody of a child must
(1) recite the facts on which a conclusion of imminent serious physical harm or removal from the state is based;
(2) direct law enforcement officers to take physical custody of the child immediately; and
(3) provide for the placement of the child pending final relief.
(d) The respondent must be served with the petition, warrant, and order immediately after the child is taken into physical custody.
(e) A warrant to take physical custody of a child is enforceable throughout this state. If the court finds on the basis of the testimony of the petitioner or other witness that a less intrusive remedy is not effective, it may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property to take physical custody of the child. If required by exigent circumstances, the court may authorize law enforcement officers to make a forcible entry at any hour.
(f) The court may impose conditions on placement of a child to ensure the appearance of the child and the child's custodian.
(a) On the filing of a petition seeking enforcement of a child custody determination, the petitioner may file a verified application for the issuance of a warrant to take physical custody of the child if the child is imminently likely either to suffer serious physical harm or to be removed from this state.
(b) If the court, on the testimony of the petitioner or other witness, finds that the child is imminently likely to suffer serious physical harm or to be removed from this state, it may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child. The petition must be heard on the next judicial day after the warrant is executed unless that date is impossible. In that event, the court shall hold the hearing on the first judicial day possible. The application for the warrant must include the statements required for petitions under AS 25.30.460(b).
(c) A warrant to take physical custody of a child must
(1) recite the facts on which a conclusion of imminent serious physical harm or removal from the state is based;
(2) direct law enforcement officers to take physical custody of the child immediately; and
(3) provide for the placement of the child pending final relief.
(d) The respondent must be served with the petition, warrant, and order immediately after the child is taken into physical custody.
(e) A warrant to take physical custody of a child is enforceable throughout this state. If the court finds on the basis of the testimony of the petitioner or other witness that a less intrusive remedy is not effective, it may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property to take physical custody of the child. If required by exigent circumstances, the court may authorize law enforcement officers to make a forcible entry at any hour.
(f) The court may impose conditions on placement of a child to ensure the appearance of the child and the child's custodian.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2007–2007 · leading case: Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007).
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490(a) — 1 case
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490(b) — 1 case
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490(c)(3) — 1 case
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490(d) — 1 case
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.490(f) — 1 case
Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2007). “Her motion also challenged the ex parte order authorizing Zachary's seizure and transfer to Murphy's custody, arguing that these actions violated the protections established in AS 25.30.490. The superior court denied reconsideration summarily, stating that "Ms.”
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.