Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Faye H. v. James B. (4/17/2015) sp-6997

Faye H. v. James B. (4/17/2015) sp-6997

         Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER .  

         Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

         303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                      

         corrections@akcourts.us.  



                   THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



FAYE H.,                                                   )  

                                                           )    Supreme Court No. S-15566  

                           Appellant,                      ) ) 

                                                           )    Superior Court No. 3KN-11-00356 CI  

         v.                                                ) 

                                                           )    O P I N I O N  

JAMES B.,                                                  ) 

                                                            )   No. 6997 - April 17, 2015  

                           Appellee.                        ) 

                                                            )  



                  Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska,  Third  

                                                                   

                  Judicial District, Kenai, Charles T. Huguelet, Judge.  



                  Appearances:  Kenneth W. Cole, Law Offices of Kenneth W.  

                                                                 

                  Cole,  Kenai,  for  Appellant.               Linn  J.  Plous,  Kenai,  for  

                  Appellee.  



                  Before:  Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and  

                                                

                  Bolger, Justices.  



                  BOLGER, Justice.  



I.       INTRODUCTION  



                  Alaska Statute 25.24.150(g) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent  

                                                                                      



with a "history of perpetrating domestic violence" shall not be awarded sole or joint  



physical custody in a child custody case.  A "history of perpetrating domestic violence"  

              



is found where a parent either causes serious physical injury during one incident of  



domestic violence or engages in more than one domestic violence incident.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                       Here the superior court awarded the parents joint physical custody of their             



daughter, finding that although the father had committed domestic violence, it was "not   



of a degree or frequency" to trigger the presumption.   But the court's factual findings   



were ambiguous   as   to whether the father committed more than one act of domestic  



violence.  We therefore remand for further findings on this issue.  



II.         FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  



                                                              1 

                       Faye H. and James B.  began a long-distance relationship in late 2009 or 

                                                                 



early  2010,  with  Faye  residing  in  Las  Vegas,  Nevada,  and  James  in  San  Diego,  

                                                                                        



California.  The couple moved to Alaska together in May 2010 and were never married.  

                                          



They had one child together, Hannah, who was born in March 2011.  



                       The parties separated shortly after Hannah's birth.  James, citing Faye's  



alleged  substance  abuse  and  seeking  primary  custody  of  Hannah,  petitioned  for  a  

                                                      



domestic violence protective order. The district court entered a temporary, 20-day order  

                                                                



granting James physical custody of Hannah and allowing supervised visitation with Faye.  



Several days later Faye similarly petitioned for a protective order, alleging that James  



                                                                                                                                  

had been "violent and abusive."  The district court scheduled a hearing on the requested  



order.    A  magistrate  judge  then  modified  the  original  20-day  order  to  allow  Faye  



unsupervised visitation with Hannah, on the condition that Faye participate in random  



drug testing.  



                       The magistrate judge also ordered that the parties' long-term protective  



                                                                                                                                               

order petitions be heard at the same time, and both parties appeared with counsel at the  



subsequent  hearings.    The  magistrate  judge  granted  Faye's  motion  for  a  long-term  



                                                                                        

protective order, denied James's, and ordered an equal physical custody arrangement.  



                                                                                                   

The long-term protective order contained a finding that James committed or attempted  



            1          We use pseudonyms for all family members.  



                                                                         -2-                                                                        6997  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

to commit the crime of "assault or reckless endangerment" against Faye.  The order also  



                                                           

contained a no-contact provision under which James was not to "telephone, contact, or  



                               

communicate in any way, directly or indirectly" with Faye except "through an attorney,"  



                                                                                

"by email to discuss matters relating to [Hannah]," or "through a notebook that travels  



                                            

with [Hannah]."  James was  also prohibited from coming within 500 feet of Faye's  



                                                                       

residence and ordered to "stay away from, and not telephone or contact" her place of  



employment.  



                                                                                 

                   James filed a complaint seeking sole legal and primary physical custody of  



Hannah.    The  superior  court  described  the  custody  case  that  followed  as  one  of  



"extremely high conflict . . . with an unusually high number of motions, requests for  



expedited consideration, and emotional hearings," only some of which are relevant to  



this appeal.  



                                                                                                         

                   While the case was pending, the State filed several criminal charges against  



                                                                                           2  

James  for  violating  the  domestic  violence  protective  order,   sexually  abusing  and  



                                                                          3                                                  4 

assaulting his significant other's four-year-old son,  indecent viewing or photography, 

                                                 



                                                      5  

and criminally misusing a computer.   None of these charges resulted in a conviction.  



But during the criminal proceedings, the superior court held an interim custody hearing  



and awarded interim legal and physical custody to Faye.  The court also appointed a  



                                                                               

guardian ad litem.  James's contact with Hannah was initially suspended, but the court  



later restored supervised visitation.  



          2        See AS 11.56.740(a)(1).  



          3        See AS 11.41.210(a)(1), .220(a)(1)(c), .436(a)(2).  



          4        See AS 11.61.123(a)(2).  



          5        See AS 11.46.740(a)(1).  



                                                             -3-                                                       6997
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                   The superior court held a trial at which both parties were represented.                           In  



its  post-trial  findings  and  conclusions,  the  court  determined  that  an  equal  physical  



custody arrangement was in Hannah's best interests and awarded sole legal custody to  



                                     

Faye.  With respect to the issue of domestic violence, the court stated at the outset of its  



analysis:  



                   Generally, the court must determine custody in accordance  

                   with the best interests of the child, and if the case involves  

                   certain kinds of domestic violence, the court must employ an  

                   additional   rebuttable         presumption         when      analyzing       the  

                   custody  and  visitation  decisions.    The  court  finds  that  the  

                   domestic violence perpetrated by [James] was not of a degree  

                   or frequency to trigger the AS 25.24.150(h) presumption.  



                   The court further discussed the issue of domestic violence in its analysis of  

                                            



the statutory best interests factors, requiring a court to consider - as one of nine factors  

                                                 



- "any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed  

custodial household or a history of violence between the parents."6  

                                                                                             The court noted that  



                   [t]here  is  evidence  that  [James]  physically  abused  [Faye].  

                   Although  [Faye]  does  not  appear  to  have  been  seriously  

                   injured, and although the abuse was not continuous, it is an  

                   area of concern for the court.  The abuse suggests [James],  

                   when experiencing acute periods of relationship stress, may  

                   have  some  difficulty  regulating  his  emotions.  [James]  is,  

                   however, an intelligent man who is capable of learning from  

                                                                                

                   his mistakes and changing for the better.  



                   The court also found "no credible evidence" that James ever committed  



child abuse, noting that he was "found not guilty of several allegations" with respect to  

                                                                     



his significant other's four-year-old son and that "the remaining charges were dismissed  

                                                                    



by the  [S]tate."  Although the court made no specific findings as to whether James  



         6         See AS 25.24.150(c)(7).  



                                                          -4-                                                       6997  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

violated the domestic violence protective order, it noted the State's dismissal of that  



criminal charge.  And the court made no specific findings as to whether other particular  



incidents of alleged domestic violence against Faye occurred.  



                                          

                  Faye moved for reconsideration, arguing that in light of James's "many  



instances" of domestic violence, the domestic violence presumption should have been  



                                                                                                         

triggered.  The superior court denied Faye's motion for reconsideration, first noting that  



as we have held, "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  



                                                                                                       7 

                                                                                                          The court  

domestic violence amounted to a history of perpetrating domestic violence." 



then  quoted  AS  25.24.150(h),  which  defines  "a  history  of  perpetrating  domestic  



violence."  Finally the court concluded that it made the requisite finding - namely, that  



Faye  "was  not  seriously  injured  [by  James's  abuse]  and  that  the  abuse  was  not  



                                                                       

continuous, therefore, not amounting to a 'history of perpetrating domestic violence'  



under AS 25.24.150(h)."  



                  Faye then filed this appeal.  



III.     STANDARD OF REVIEW  



                  "Whether the court's findings on domestic violence are supported by the  



                                                                                    8  

                                                                                       "But whether the court  

record is a question of fact which we review for clear error." 



used  the  proper  legal  standard  for  applying  the  domestic  violence  presumption  -  



                                                                

including whether the court's findings support applying the presumption - is a question  



         7         Williams   v.   Barbee,   243   P.3d   995,   1003   (Alaska    2010)   (quoting  



Puddicombe  v.  Dreka ,  167  P.3d  73,  77  (Alaska  2007))  (internal  quotation  marks  

omitted).  



         8         Yelena R. v. George R., 326 P.3d 989, 998 (Alaska 2014).  



                                                         -5-                                                   6997
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                       9  

of law, which we review de novo."   "A factual finding is clearly erroneous when a  



review of the record leaves the court with a definite and firm conviction that the superior  

                                                        

court has made a mistake."10  



IV.	      DISCUSSION  



                    Under AS 25.24.150(g), "[t]here 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."  "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  



                                                                                                                       11  

                                                                                                                           Faye  

that the parent has engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence." 



raises only one point on appeal:  that the superior court erred "by refusing to trigger the  

                                                                            



rebuttable presumption of AS 25.24.150(g)."  



          A.	        The  Superior  Court's  Findings  Were  Insufficient  As  To  Whether  

                                                           

                    James Committed More Than One Act of Domestic Violence Against  

                                                                       

                    Faye.  



                    Faye argues that  the superior court was required to apply the domestic  

                                                



violence presumption in light of James's repeated "physical and verbal attacks" against  



her during the relationship.  At trial Faye testified that she "[knew] of at least three"  

                                                         



occasions when James committed domestic violence against her. Faye also testified that  

                                                                                                   



on these occasions, James "consistently took [her] phone . . . and [her] keys so that [she]  



could not go anywhere and . . . could not call anybody."  



          9	        Id.  



          10        Frackman v. Enzor , 327 P.3d 878, 882 (Alaska 2014) (quoting                                     Fardig v.  



Fardig , 56 P.3d 9, 11 (Alaska 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  



          11        AS 25.24.150(h) (emphasis added).  



                                                                -6-	                                                       6997
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                             

                    According to Faye, James's first act of domestic violence occurred when  



Faye was "three or four months pregnant."  Faye testified that during this instance, James  



                                                                                                                  

"grabbed [her] by [the] arm," "pulled [her] by [her] hair," and "dragged" her across a  



                                                              

wooden floor.  She testified that another incident occurred during "a heated argument,"  



                                                                                        

when James "pulled [her] off the bed" and "pulled . . . or pushed [her] into the closet."  



And Faye testified that "[a]nother incident[] . . . was when [James] choked [her] with his  



                                                                                                                

forearm up against the entryway of [their] home."  Faye also testified that during one of  



these incidents, James fired a gun while she was "about five feet away" and that the  



bullet "went through the master bathroom door."  



                    Additionally, Faye introduced the 2011 domestic violence protective order,  



                                         

which  included  a  finding  that  James  committed  or  attempted  to  commit  "assault  or  



                                     12  

                                                                      

reckless endangerment."                   The order did not specify whether there was more than one  



such incident.  



                    The findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding domestic violence  



                                                                            

during James and Faye's relationship suggest that the superior court believed James had  



committed more than one act of domestic violence.  In particular the court stated that  



                                                                                      

"the domestic violence perpetrated by [James] was not of a degree or frequency to trigger  



                                                                        

the AS 25.24.150(h) presumption."  The court also concluded that "[t]here is evidence  



          12        Faye argues that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the superior court  



was bound by this finding "as to whether [James] committed acts of domestic violence."  

                                                                                                   

(Emphasis added.)   Collateral estoppel indeed "bars the relitigation of issues actually  

                                

determined in [earlier] proceedings."  Latham v. Palin , 251 P.3d 341, 344 (Alaska 2011)  

                                                                                   

(alteration in original) (quoting Jeffries v. Glacier State Tel. Co. , 604 P.2d 4, 8 n.11  

                                                                  

(Alaska 1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  But Faye has not shown how the  

                                                                                                                       

superior court's findings were inconsistent with any issue "actually determined" in the  

                                                                                         

parties'  domestic  violence  case,  because  the  protective  order  states  only  that  James  

                                           

committed  at  least  one  act  of  domestic  violence.                          Accordingly  we  do  not  need  to  

                                                                                 

determine whether collateral estoppel applies here.  



                                                               -7-                                                         6997
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

that  [James]   physically  abused  [Faye]"  and  noted  that  "although  the  abuse  was  not  



continuous, it is an area of concern for the court.  The abuse suggests [James], when   



experiencing acute periods  of relationship stress, may have some difficulty regulating                  



his    emotions."             (Emphasis           added.)          Finally,       in    denying         Faye's       motion        for  



reconsideration,  the  court  stressed   that  it  had  "made  a  finding  that  [Faye]  was  not  



seriously injured and that the abuse was not continuous, therefore, not amounting to a   



'history of perpetrating domestic violence' under AS 25.24.150(h)." (Emphasis added.)                       



                     We have held 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  



                             13  

                                 In Michele M. v. Richard R. , for example, we remanded for further  

AS 25.24.150(h)."                                                                                  



findings where the superior court alluded to a parent's "domestic violence problems" in  

                                                                                                       



its findings of fact and conclusions of law but never specifically determined whether the  

                                                                  



                                                                                                                  14  

parent had "a history of perpetrating domestic violence" under the statute.                                           In Williams  

                                                                                                  



v. Barbee , we held that more specific findings were necessary where the superior court  



described  one  incident  of  domestic  violence  as  a  "big  deal"  but  never  determined  



                                                                                                               15  

whether it resulted in "serious physical injury" under AS 25.24.150(h).                                            And in Parks  

                  



v. Parks , we concluded that where there was testimony  at trial regarding a parent's  

                                                                                            



alleged  violation  of  a  long-term  protective  order  -  a  "crime  involving  domestic  



           13        Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995, 1004 (Alaska 2010).  



           14        177 P.3d 830, 835-38 (Alaska 2008).  



           15        243 P.3d at 1004, 1007.  



                                                                  -8-                                                           6997
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

violence" under the relevant statute16  - it was error for the trial court not to make a   



finding as to whether the alleged violation occurred.17  



                                                                                                     

                    Here the superior court appears to have specifically avoided determining  



                         

whether James "engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence" under AS  



                                                                                                         

25.24.150(h).  Instead the superior court focused on whether James's abuse of Faye was  



"continuous," an issue not relevant to the statutory definition of a "history of perpetrating  



                               18  

domestic  violence."                 This  improper  focus  prevents  us  from  evaluating  the  court's  



                                

ultimate conclusion  that James lacked a "history of perpetrating domestic violence."  



                                                                       

Accordingly, we remand so the superior court can make specific findings as to whether  



James committed more than one act of domestic violence.  



                                       

                    In addition to findings regarding the alleged acts of physical abuse against  



                                     

Faye, the superior court may also need to consider whether James violated the no-contact  



                                                                                   

provision of the long-term protective order by hiring a private investigator to conduct  



                                                                           

surveillance of Faye.  At trial Faye testified that a private investigator hired by James  



                                                                 

came to three different locations where she was present, purportedly to administer court- 



                                                                                                  

ordered drug tests.  James admitted that he hired the private agent to perform drug testing  



but denied retaining him for other surveillance activities.  



                                                                                                     

                    The protective order issued in 2011 prohibited James from "telephon[ing],  



                                                                                                      

contact[ing], or communicat[ing] in any way, directly or indirectly, with [Faye]" except  



                                                                               

"by email to discuss matters relating to [Hannah]," "through an attorney," or "through  



                                             

a notebook that travels with [Hannah]."  But the superior court made no finding as to  



          16        See  AS  18.66.990(3)(G)  (defining  the  "violat[ion]  of  a  protective  order  



under AS 11.56.740(a)(1)" as a "crime involving domestic violence").  



          17        214 P.3d 295, 300-01 (Alaska 2009).  



          18        See AS 25.24.150(h).  



                                                               -9-                                                         6997
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                       19  

whether James violated this no-contact provision.                          The court should address this issue  



                                                                            

on remand, if necessary to determine whether James committed more than one incident  



of domestic violence.  



          B.	      The Superior Court Should Consider Evidence Of James's Alleged  

                   Acquisition Of Faye's Digital Media, If Relevant To Its Consideration  

                   Of   Whether   James   Has   "A   History   Of   Perpetrating   Domestic  

                   Violence."  



                   Faye claims that James committed "[a]nother set of acts involving domestic  



violence" by using his cell phone to access "every email sent to and from [Faye's] email  



                                                                                                       

accounts and every text message sent to and from [Faye's] cell phone" during a period  



of "two to three years."  



                   The evidence regarding this claim is somewhat sparse.  Faye testified at trial  



                                                                                                    

that James had access to her email accounts on his phone; that James appeared to know  



          

about  her  email  exchanges  with  her  attorney;  and  that  James  had  accessed  nude  



photographs she sent to a significant other.  James testified that while he and Faye were  



                                                                                                               

a couple, Faye would sometimes access her email on his phone.  And although James did  



                                                  

not dispute that the police found photographs of Faye on his phone, including nude  



                                                                  

photographs,  he testified that "the majority of those photos were ones that [Faye], by her  



own accord, e-mailed or texted [to him]."  



                                                                       

                   The superior court made no factual findings as to whether James's access  



                                                                                                        20 

to Faye's digital media constituted a "crime involving domestic violence."                                  And in light  



          19       The superior court did note that the "[criminal] charge that [James] violated   



a protective order was . . . dismissed."  



          20       For  purposes  of  AS  25.24.150(g)'s  domestic  violence  presumption,  



"domestic violence" means a "crime involving domestic violence" as defined under  

                                                                                                        

AS  18.66.990(3).    See  AS  25.90.010  ("In  this  title,  'domestic  violence'  and  'crime  

involving domestic violence' have the meanings given in AS 18.66.990.").  



                                                           -10-	                                                     6997
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

of  Faye's  cursory  treatment  of  this  issue  in  her  opening  brief,  it  is  insufficiently  



                                      21  

                                                                                              

developed for our review.                 On remand, however, the superior court should consider the  



                                                 

parties' testimony about Faye's digital media if necessary to determine whether James  



had "a history of perpetrating domestic violence."  



          C.	       The Superior Court Did Not Commit Clear Error In Finding That  

                    James Never Physically Or Sexually Abused His Significant Other's  

                    Son.  



                    Following the parties' separation, James was indicted on charges that he  



                                                                                                                    

sexually and physically abused his significant other's four-year-old son.   After  two  



criminal trials, all of the charges resulted in either not-guilty verdicts or dismissals.  In  



                                                                            

its factual findings regarding the custody dispute, the superior court noted that "[Faye]  



                                                        

was very concerned that the criminal charges against [James] were never fully resolved.  



                                                                                                  

[Faye] did not, however, offer any evidence showing that [James] abused [his significant  



other's]  son,  and  [James]  adamantly  denied  having  abused  any  child."    The  court  



ultimately found "no credible evidence" that James ever committed child abuse.  



                                                                                                            

                    Faye does not expressly argue that the superior court erred in reaching this  



                                                                                             

conclusion.  But in her statement of the case, Faye describes the criminal proceedings  



                                                

against James and contends in a footnote that "[e]ven though the majority of charges  



were  never  resolved  on  the  merits,  there  was  significant  evidence  against  [James].  



                                               

[James] admitted the four year old received very serious injuries while in his care."   But  



besides  James's  own  testimony  during  cross-examination,  there  was  no  evidence  



                                                                                                                   

presented at trial regarding these allegations.  Assuming that Faye properly raised this  



          21        See  Burts v. Burts , 266 P.3d 337, 344 (Alaska 2011) ("[W]here a point is  



given only a cursory statement in the argument portion of a brief, the point will not be       

considered on appeal." (quoting Adamson v. Univ. of Alaska                                    , 819 P.2d 886, 889 n.3  

(Alaska 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).  



                                                              -11-	                                                        6997
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

issue, it was not clearly erroneous for the superior court to find that James committed no  

                                                        



act of domestic violence against the four-year-old boy.  



          D.	       The  Superior  Court  Should  Consider  James's  Alleged  Domestic  

                    Violence Against His Ex-Wife, If Relevant To Its Consideration Of  

                    Whether James Has "A History Of Perpetrating Domestic Violence."  

                                                                       



                    Faye contends that James committed domestic violence against his ex-wife,  



                                                                                                    

and she argues that the court ignored evidence of this abuse.  At trial James denied these  



                                                                                      

allegations during cross-examination, and Faye's attorney sought to call James's ex-wife  



                                                                                                                      

as a rebuttal witness to impeach James's testimony. The superior court ruled that the ex- 



                                                                                               

wife should have been listed as a witness because Faye's counsel knew before trial about  



her allegations of domestic violence and should have assumed that James might deny  



                                                                                              

such claims.  Although the superior court described the relevant testimony in its findings  



            

of fact and conclusions of law, it issued no specific finding as to whether the alleged  

domestic violence occurred.22  



                                     

                    On  appeal  Faye  argues  that  the  superior  court  improperly  discounted  



James's alleged domestic violence against his ex-wife because it occurred eight years  



                                                                                     

prior.  Faye also takes issue with the court's exclusion of the ex-wife's testimony.  But  



                                                                                  

Faye raises these arguments only in her reply brief; her opening brief does not mention  



James's ex-wife except in the  statement of the case, which briefly describes Faye's  



attempt to call the ex-wife as a rebuttal witness and the court's subsequent ruling.  



          22        In relevant part, the superior court noted that "[Faye] had evidence that  



[James] had abused his first wife.  [James] admitted that his ex-wife had claimed that he  

                                                               

abused her, but he denied it had ever occurred (the marriage was from October 2005 to  

                                                                     

April 2006).  [James] said the allegations of domestic violence followed a Coast Guard  

                     

investigation of his ex-wife for adultery."  



                                                             -12-	                                                      6997
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

                                                                                                                             

                        Under this court's "well-established rule . . . issues not argued in opening  



                                                     23  

appellate briefs are waived."                             Accordingly, Faye has waived any argument that the  



superior court improperly excluded the ex-wife's rebuttal testimony.  But on remand,  



                                                

the superior court should consider any other evidence that James perpetrated domestic  



violence against his ex-wife in determining whether James has "a history of perpetrating  



domestic violence."  



V.          CONCLUSION  



                        For the reasons detailed above, we REMAND this matter to the superior  



                                                                                                                                          

court  for  additional  findings  as  to  whether  James  engaged  in  more  than  one  act  of  



                                  24 

                                                                                

domestic violence.                    The court may modify its custody order as required by its findings;  



we do not retain jurisdiction.  



            23          Hymes v. DeRamus , 222 P.3d 874, 887 (Alaska 2010);                                                  see also Hitt v. J.  



B. Coghill, Inc., 641 P.2d 211, 213 n.4 (Alaska 1982) ("Appellant set forth other grounds                                   

for reversal in her statement of points on appeal, one of which she argued in her reply   

brief,  but  argued  none  of  them  in   her   opening  brief.    Accordingly,  these  points  are  

waived.").  



            24          In light of our conclusion that further findings are necessary to determine  



                                                                                                                               

whether James has a "history of perpetrating domestic violence" under AS 25.24.150(h),  

       

we  do  not  reach  Faye's  request  that  this  court  require  James  to  "participate  in  and  

                                             

successfully complete a state approved batterer's intervention program as described in  

AS 18.66.990(4)."  Nor do we reach what James appears to put forth as an alternative  

ground for affirming the superior court's decision:  that he has rebutted the domestic  

violence presumption.  



                                                                           -13-                                                                     6997
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC