Reaffirming Hearing Requirements for Rule 11 Sanctions and Mandatory AS 25.20.115 Findings; Written Orders Control “Shared Physical Custody” Under Rule 90.3

Reaffirming Hearing Requirements for Rule 11 Sanctions and Mandatory AS 25.20.115 Findings; Written Orders Control “Shared Physical Custody” Under Rule 90.3

Note: This is a memorandum opinion and judgment of the Alaska Supreme Court. Under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d), memorandum decisions do not create binding precedent. Even so, the decision provides a clear and useful synthesis of controlling doctrines.

Introduction

This case arises from a post-divorce dispute between Lawrence R. (father, pro se appellant) and Andrea P. (mother, appellee) over legal custody, child support, and allocation of uncovered medical expenses for their child, Bailey R. The superior court awarded the mother sole legal custody, denied the father’s requests for relief from child support orders and reimbursement for out-of-network psychiatric care, and later sanctioned the father and awarded the mother attorney’s fees when he filed a motion for interim custody shortly after the court’s omnibus order.

On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirms most of the superior court’s rulings—upholding the grant of sole legal custody to the mother, the denial of the father’s Civil Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from child support, and the denial of his claim for 50% reimbursement of out-of-network health expenses. The Court vacates, however, the sanctions and attorney’s fees award because the father was not afforded the required hearing before Rule 11 sanctions were imposed and because the attorney’s fees were awarded under the wrong legal standard without required findings.

Key issues addressed include:

  • When joint legal custody becomes unworkable due to parental breakdown in communication, a court must award sole legal custody and then weigh best interests factors under AS 25.24.150(c).
  • For child support, “shared physical custody” under Civil Rule 90.3 is determined by the written custody order’s specified schedule—not by one parent’s assertion of actual day-to-day deviations.
  • Uncovered medical expenses are allocated only if “reasonable” under Rule 90.3(d)(2); unilateral out-of-network decisions, made while violating existing orders and without notice to the other parent, can be deemed unreasonable.
  • Courts may not impose Rule 11 sanctions without an order to show cause, notice, and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing (Rule 95(a)).
  • Attorney’s fees in custody enforcement or modification matters must be analyzed under AS 25.20.115 (not Rule 82), with explicit findings on good faith and the parties’ relative financial resources.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Custody: Affirmed. The superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parents’ inability to communicate rendered joint legal custody unworkable and that the statutory best interests factors favored awarding sole legal custody to the mother. The court credited evidence that the mother encouraged the child’s contact with the father and discredited the father’s contrary assertions and his repeated, meritless protective-order filings.
  • Child support (Rule 60(b) relief): Affirmed. The father failed to show a mistake or other basis for relief. Even if actual parenting time fluctuated, Civil Rule 90.3 defines “shared physical custody” by the written custody order (including ratified agreements), not a parent’s after-the-fact calculations.
  • Out-of-network medical expenses: Affirmed. The superior court acted within its discretion in finding the father’s unilateral out-of-network expenses were not “reasonable” under Rule 90.3(d)(2) and denying reimbursement.
  • Judicial bias: Waived and meritless. The father raised bias only in reply; even if considered, credibility determinations and adverse rulings are not evidence of bias.
  • Sanctions and attorney’s fees: Vacated. Rule 11 sanctions require notice and a hearing (Rule 95(a)); the father was not given one. Fee awards in custody enforcement/modification are governed by AS 25.20.115, requiring explicit findings on good faith and relative financial resources; those findings were missing. Remanded for proceedings consistent with these requirements.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

  • Custody review standards:
    • Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2005), and Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531 (Alaska 2004): Broad discretion for trial courts; reversals only for clear error or abuse of discretion.
    • Matthew P. v. Gail S., 354 P.3d 1044 (Alaska 2015); Frackman v. Enzor, 327 P.3d 878 (Alaska 2014): An abuse of discretion occurs if the court considers improper factors, fails to consider mandated factors, or disproportionately weighs some factors while ignoring others.
    • Hannah B. v. OCS, 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012): Deference to credibility findings based on oral testimony.
  • Modification standards and best interests:
    • Wells v. Barile, 358 P.3d 583 (Alaska 2015); AS 25.20.110(a): Modification requires a change in circumstances and that modification serves the child’s best interests.
    • Riggs v. Coonradt, 335 P.3d 1103 (Alaska 2014): A “complete breakdown in communication” is a sufficient change of circumstances; if joint legal custody is unworkable, the court must award sole legal custody and then apply best interests factors (AS 25.24.150(c)).
    • AS 25.24.150(c): Statutory best interests factors, including each parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.
    • Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005); Gavora, Inc. v. City of Fairbanks, 502 P.3d 410 (Alaska 2021): Heightened deference to trial courts’ credibility determinations.
    • Jouppi v. State, 566 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2025): Arguments not raised below are waived on appeal (noting the father did not seek a physical custody modification below).
  • Child support standards:
    • Wills v. Humphries, 564 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2025); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 370 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2016): Child support awards reviewed for abuse of discretion or legal error; legal standards and rule interpretations reviewed de novo.
    • Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 and its comments: “Shared physical custody” exists only if the written custody order (or ratified agreement) specifies that the child resides with a parent for 30–70% of the year, calculated by overnights. Deviations from the written schedule do not retroactively convert a primary-custody order into shared custody.
  • Rule 60(b) relief:
    • Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879 (Alaska 2013); Grothe v. Olafson, 659 P.2d 602 (Alaska 1983): Denials of Rule 60(b) relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    • Red Hook Construction, LLC v. Bishop, 556 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2024); BBFM Engineers, Inc. v. McDonald, 530 P.3d 352 (Alaska 2023): Recognize but do not definitively resolve whether “mistake” includes judicial error under Rule 60(b).
    • Buchholdt v. Nelson, 534 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2023): Unsupported assertions are insufficient to show the superior court committed legal error in denying Rule 60(b) relief.
  • Uncovered medical expenses:
    • Rule 90.3(d)(2): Courts allocate reasonable uninsured medical expenses equally unless good cause exists to “order otherwise.”
    • J.L.P. v. V.L.A., 30 P.3d 590 (Alaska 2001): Abuse of discretion standard applies to orders allocating uncovered medical expenses.
  • Waiver and bias:
    • Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2010); Hymes v. DeRamus, 222 P.3d 874 (Alaska 2010): Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived, including for pro se litigants.
    • Snider v. Snider, 357 P.3d 1180 (Alaska 2015); Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009): Adverse rulings—even if wrong—do not establish judicial bias.
    • Downs v. Downs, 440 P.3d 294 (Alaska 2019); Brown v. State, 414 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2018) (Winfree, J., concurring/dissenting); Hanson v. Hanson, 36 P.3d 1181 (Alaska 2001): Bias must be “intrajudicial” and so prejudicial that continued participation would be unfair; credibility determinations formed by evidence are not bias.
  • Sanctions and attorney’s fees in custody contexts:
    • Rule 11 and Rule 95(a); Fox v. Grace, 435 P.3d 883 (Alaska 2018); Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220 (Alaska 1992): Rule 11 sanctions require an order to show cause and a hearing (notice and opportunity to be heard) before sanctions may be imposed.
    • Collier v. Harris, 261 P.3d 397 (Alaska 2011): Attorney’s fees in actions to enforce or modify custody are governed by AS 25.20.115, not Rule 82.
    • S.L. v. J.H., 883 P.2d 984 (Alaska 1994); Rowen v. Rowen, 963 P.2d 249 (Alaska 1998): Fee awards under AS 25.20.115 require explicit findings on the parties’ relative financial resources and whether each acted in good faith.

Legal Reasoning

  • Unworkability of joint legal custody and best interests: The superior court determined that the parents’ communication had broken down—evidenced by the father’s repeated, meritless protective-order applications (described as a “clear custody grab”), the parents’ struggles to comply with the custody order, and credible evidence that the father consented to, then retracted consent for, residential mental health treatment as retaliation. Under Riggs, once joint legal custody becomes unworkable, the court must award sole legal custody and apply the statutory best-interests framework. The court found three factors favored the mother: the child’s needs (AS 25.24.150(c)(1)), each parent’s capability and desire to meet those needs (c)(2), and willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent (c)(6). The remaining factors were neutral or inapplicable. The father’s contrary claims lacked evidentiary support and were undermined by credibility determinations entitled to deference.
  • Rule 60(b) relief from support orders: The father argued the court mistakenly based support on primary physical custody rather than shared physical custody. But Rule 90.3 defines “shared physical custody” by the written custody order (or a ratified agreement)—requiring a specified schedule of at least 30% overnights—rather than a parent’s retrospective tally of actual nights. The operative agreements and orders stated that the mother had primary physical custody. The father’s unsupported claim that he held 45% of overnights could not establish judicial “mistake” or any other basis for Rule 60(b) relief.
  • Uncovered medical expenses: Rule 90.3(d)(2) requires equal allocation of “reasonable” uninsured health expenses unless the court finds good cause to order otherwise. The father unilaterally engaged out-of-network psychiatric services without notifying the mother, while violating the existing custody order. Under those circumstances, the superior court reasonably deemed the expenses not “reasonable” and denied reimbursement.
  • Judicial bias waived and unsupported: The bias claim was raised only in the reply brief and was therefore waived. In any event, credibility findings and adverse rulings do not constitute bias where grounded in evidence heard in court.
  • Sanctions and fees vacated:
    • Rule 11 sanctions: Before imposing sanctions, courts must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing via an order to show cause under Rule 95(a). No hearing was provided; the sanctions order was therefore vacated.
    • Attorney’s fees: The superior court awarded 100% of the mother’s fees under Rule 82, but custody enforcement/modification actions are governed by AS 25.20.115. That statute requires explicit findings on the parties’ relative financial resources and good faith. Those findings were absent, so the fee award was vacated and remanded.

Impact and Practice Implications

  • Sanctions procedure is not optional: Trial courts must adhere to the procedural safeguards for sanctions. Parties seeking or opposing Rule 11 sanctions should anticipate and insist upon the required show-cause process and a hearing under Rule 95(a).
  • Correct fee rubric in custody-related motions: Practitioners must brief fees under AS 25.20.115, not Rule 82, when enforcing or modifying custody orders. Courts must make explicit findings on good faith and the parties’ relative resources. Failure to do so will likely require vacatur and remand.
  • Written orders govern child support classifications: For Rule 90.3 purposes, whether custody is “shared” turns on the written decree or ratified agreement, not on post hoc assertions of actual parenting time. Parents who deviate informally from the schedule should not assume such deviations will retroactively alter support calculations.
  • Unilateral medical decisions risk non-reimbursement: Even if a parent believes an out-of-network provider is best, unilateral action—especially during a violation of the custody order and without notice—risks a finding that expenses are not “reasonable” under Rule 90.3(d)(2) and thus not reimbursable.
  • When joint legal custody breaks down: Evidence of sustained communication failure, unilateral decision-making, and attempts to weaponize protective orders can support awarding sole legal custody to one parent. The pivotal best interests factor often is each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent (AS 25.24.150(c)(6)).
  • Appellate waiver rules are enforced: Arguments must be raised in the opening brief, and issues not raised below (e.g., seeking physical custody modification) are typically waived on appeal—even for pro se parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Legal vs. physical custody: Legal custody concerns decision-making authority for major issues (health, education, religion). Physical custody concerns where the child resides and overnight time.
  • Joint vs. sole legal custody: Joint legal custody requires cooperation and communication; if that breaks down, the court may award sole legal custody to one parent based on the child’s best interests.
  • Best interests factors (AS 25.24.150(c)): A statutory list of considerations guiding custody decisions, including the child’s needs, each parent’s capability, the child’s preference (if mature enough), and each parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.
  • Civil Rule 90.3 child support: Determines support obligations. “Shared physical custody” for support purposes exists only if the written order specifies at least 30% overnight time with a parent. Day-to-day deviations do not change the support category unless and until the written order is modified.
  • Rule 60(b) relief: A limited mechanism to obtain relief from a final judgment for reasons like mistake or extraordinary circumstances. The movant bears the burden and must present more than conclusory assertions.
  • Uncovered medical expenses (Rule 90.3(d)(2)): Courts typically split reasonable uninsured health expenses equally, but may depart for good cause—e.g., where one parent unilaterally incurs out-of-network costs without notice or contrary to court orders.
  • Rule 11 sanctions and Rule 95(a): Courts can sanction filings made for improper purposes or without support, but only after issuing an order to show cause and providing notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing.
  • Attorney’s fees in custody cases (AS 25.20.115): Fee awards must be based on explicit findings that consider each party’s good faith and relative financial resources; Rule 82’s default fee-shifting does not control.
  • Waiver on appeal: Issues must be preserved in the trial court and presented in the opening appellate brief. New arguments raised only in reply are typically waived.

Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court’s memorandum in Lawrence R. v. Andrea P. largely affirms the superior court’s careful, credibility-based custody and support determinations: joint legal custody had become unworkable, best interests favored awarding the mother sole legal custody, and the father failed to meet the stringent requirements for Rule 60(b) relief from support or to justify reimbursement for unilateral out-of-network medical expenses. The Court’s vacatur of sanctions and attorney’s fees underscores critical procedural and statutory guardrails: Rule 11 sanctions require a hearing (Rule 95(a)), and fee awards in custody enforcement/modification must be grounded in AS 25.20.115 with explicit findings on good faith and the parties’ financial resources. Although non-precedential, the decision reinforces well-settled Alaska doctrines regarding custody modifications, child support calculations under Rule 90.3, and the procedural prerequisites for sanctions and fee awards—guidance that will be highly instructive to practitioners and trial courts handling contentious post-decree parenting disputes.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of The State Of Alaska

Comments