Angelica C. v. Jonathan C.

Decision Date20 March 2020
Docket NumberSupreme Court Nos. S-16874/17093 (Consolidated)
Citation459 P.3d 1148
Parties ANGELICA C., Petitioner, v. JONATHAN C., Respondent. Angelica C., Appellant, v. Jonathan C., Appellee.
CourtAlaska Supreme Court

Angelica C., pro se, Petersburg, Petitioner-Appellant.

Fred W. Triem, Petersburg, for Respondent-Appellee.

Michael P. Heiser, Ketchikan, for Intervenors Miles C. and Tonya C. Christine Oberholtzer, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

Brooke Berens, Assistant Public Advocate, and Chad Holt, Public Advocate, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae the Office of Public Advocacy.

Anna R. Jay, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Amicus Curiae State of Alaska.

Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices.

OPINION

STOWERS, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

A 19-year-old man had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl and she became pregnant. The man pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. While the man was incarcerated the girl gave birth to their son. When the girl was 17, she was arrested and sent to a juvenile correctional facility. A dispute arose over custody of the child and the superior court ultimately entered a custody order based on the parents’ stipulation. The mother was to have primary physical custody and the father would have regular visitation.

After the mother’s living situation became unstable, the father sought to modify the custody order. Those proceedings, which included an earlier appeal to this court, resulted in two orders of relevance here. First, the mother sought to terminate the father’s parental rights because his paternity was rooted in a criminal sex act. The superior court rejected the mother’s interpretation of former AS 25.23.180(e) — which describes an "independent proceeding" for the termination of parental rights of sexual abusers — and dismissed her petition. She filed a petition for review of this decision, which we granted. Meanwhile, the superior court continued with the father’s motion to modify custody and ultimately awarded sole custody to the father — with visitation for the mother and both sets of grandparents — after concluding that he had overcome the domestic violence presumption that would otherwise bar his custody. The mother appeals that order.

We consolidated the petition for review and appeal for oral argument and decision. We conclude that in the termination case the superior court erred by rejecting the mother’s petition to terminate the father’s parental rights, and in the custody case it erred by failing to properly integrate the father’s sexual abuse of the mother into its best interests analysis for awarding custody. We reverse both orders and remand the case for the superior court to re-examine the petition to terminate parental rights and — if the father’s parental rights are not terminated — to conduct a new best interests analysis to determine custody.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Background Facts

When Jonathan C. was 18 and 19 years old he had an ongoing sexual relationship with 13-year-old Angelica C., who became pregnant. Jonathan pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, and he was incarcerated when Angelica gave birth at age 14 to a son, J.T., in March 2010. Jonathan was released in March 2011.

In December 2012, when Angelica was 17, she was arrested for theft, criminal trespass, and resisting arrest, and she remained in custody until she was released from McLaughlin Youth Center in April 2014. Her parents — Miles and Tonya C. — cared for J.T. in her absence, and they petitioned for guardianship of their grandson in January 2013. Jonathan opposed Angelica’s parents’ petition, and in December 2013 he initiated a separate action seeking custody of J.T. The cases were consolidated, and Angelica’s parents ultimately withdrew their petition for guardianship. Jonathan and Angelica avoided trial in the custody case by reaching a compromise — primary physical custody to Angelica, regular visitation for Jonathan, and shared legal custody — and in September 2014 the superior court issued a custody order based on this stipulated agreement.

B. Custody Proceedings
1. The 2016 custody order

At the time of the stipulated order, Angelica lived in Haines and Jonathan lived in Petersburg. By late 2014 Angelica and J.T. moved to Petersburg. Angelica’s parents remained in Haines, and Angelica struggled to support J.T. on her own. According to the guardian ad litem in the case, Angelica "had no money, at times no food, and she was staying in an apartment frequented by drug addicts." The guardian ad litem filed a report of harm with the Office of Children’s Services, and Angelica agreed to a safety plan placing J.T. with Jonathan’s father, Victor T., and Victor’s wife. Victor cared for J.T. intermittently during this time. He also allowed Angelica to work at his restaurant, and on several occasions he provided food to Angelica and her then-boyfriend.

In March 2015 Angelica placed J.T. with her parents in Haines, but she remained in Petersburg. In September 2015 Jonathan moved to modify the custody arrangement. At a hearing in January 2016 the superior court received evidence that Angelica lacked a stable residence, that she remained unemployed and depended on others for food, and that her appearance and conduct indicated that she was abusing drugs. Angelica was unable to rebut this testimony because she failed to appear at the January hearing or show good cause for her absence.

While the court had many reasons to not place J.T. with Angelica, it also identified problems with granting custody to Jonathan. He was between jobs, had a three-month old child with a new partner, and remained on probation. The special master assigned to the case found that Jonathan had a history of perpetrating domestic violence based on his repeated acts of sexual abuse against Angelica, making him presumptively ineligible for custody.1 The superior court was uncertain whether this analysis was sound. It explained:

At this point in the litigation, the court questions applicability of that finding based on this record and finds either that the presumption [against granting custody based on domestic violence] has been rebutted, waived, or mooted out by agreement of the parties on September 19, 2014. This issue may be re-examined in the future. Regardless, the court is not awarding custody to [Jonathan].

In July 2016 the court granted custody to Victor.

Angelica appealed, and we reversed the custody order because she had not been given adequate notice that Victor — a non-parent who was not a formal party to the custody case — might receive custody of J.T.2 The court determined that both Angelica and Jonathan were unable at the time to care for J.T. The court did not grant non-parent custody to Angelica’s parents because of their history of "hostility" toward Jonathan, which included violating an agreement to return J.T. to Jonathan’s care after a visit with them.

2. The 2016 petition to terminate parental rights

Shortly before the superior court awarded custody to Victor in July 2016, Angelica filed a petition in the custody case to terminate Jonathan’s parental rights. She based her petition on former AS 25.23.180(e), which allowed the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights in an "independent proceeding" in cases of sexual abuse of a minor that resulted in conception of a child.3 The court stayed the termination petition pending our decision on the appeal from its custody order.

On remand after we issued our decision, the superior court denied Angelica’s petition to terminate Jonathan’s parental rights. The court relied on language in former AS 25.23.180(c) that referred to termination "by a court order issued in connection with a proceeding under this chapter or a proceeding under AS 47.10."4 Because the case before the superior court was a custody case, rather than an adoption case under AS 25.23 or a child in need of aid (CINA) proceeding under AS 47.10, the court concluded that the statute did not permit it to terminate Jonathan’s parental rights. Angelica filed a petition for review, which we granted.

3. The 2018 custody order

After denying Angelica’s petition to terminate Jonathan’s parental rights, the superior court proceeded with the custody case.5

Angelica and Jonathan each sought to increase custody for themselves or their parents and to limit the other to visitation. Angelica’s parents emphasized the harm caused by Jonathan’s sexual abuse of Angelica, and Angelica testified that Jonathan had broken his promises to be an involved father to J.T. Angelica and her parents also noted that they had been the primary caregivers for J.T. from infancy until he was placed with Victor in 2016, and they argued that J.T. would benefit from the consistency of returning to their care. Jonathan contended that Angelica was unfit to parent J.T. due to her lack of employment, dependence on her parents, and substance abuse issues. He also contrasted the cooperativeness he and Victor had shown with the antagonism Angelica and Miles C. had displayed. The guardian ad litem’s analysis was similar to Jonathan’s, and she recommended that Jonathan be granted sole legal and primary physical custody.

In April 2018 the superior court granted Jonathan sole legal and primary physical custody, pending his completion of a batterers’ intervention program. The court recognized that Alaska law presumes that custody may not be awarded to a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence unless that parent satisfies certain requirements.6 But the court was skeptical that Jonathan’s conviction for attempted sexual abuse of a minor made him a domestic violence perpetrator:

The court remains as dubious today as it was in 2016 that [Jonathan]’s conviction is applicable to finding that he has a history of perpetrating domestic violence within the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Angelica C. v. Jonathan C.
    • United States
    • Alaska Supreme Court
    • October 14, 2022
    ...standard of review for a termination petition in an independent proceeding under AS 25.23.180(c)(2) or former AS 25.23.180(c)(3) .28 In Angelica C. we instructed the superior court to consider the best interests factors applicable to civil custody cases as well as those applicable to CIN......
1 books & journal articles
  • Review of the Year 2020 in Family Law: COVID-19, Zoom, and Family Law in a Pandemic
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Family Law Quarterly No. 54-4, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ..., Merrells v. Dotray, 299 So. 3d 208, 214–15 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied , 301 So. 3d 30 (La. 2020). 214. Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., 459 P.3d 1148, 1160–62 (Alaska 2020). 215. Id. at 1155–58. 216. Wisnewski v. Wisnewski, 945 N.W.2d 331, 339–42 (N.D. 2020). 217. Thornton v. Bozquez, 933 N.W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT