JACQUALINE SCHAEFFER-MATHIS n/k/a JACQUALINE SCHAEFFER, Appellant,
v.
LINUS MATHIS, Appellee.
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Palmer, Vanessa White, Judge. Superior
Court No. 3PA-11-02658 CI
Appearances: J. Stefan Otterson, Otterson Law Office,
Anchorage, for Appellant.
Darryl
L. Jones, Law Office of Darryl L. Jones, Palmer, for
Appellee.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and
Carney, Justices.
OPINION
STOWERS, CHIEF JUSTICE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
After
nearly ten years of marriage and the birth of two children, a
couple separated in 2012. Three years of contentious
litigation followed, during which time the father had interim
sole legal custody of the children, and the physical custody
arrangements were modified multiple times. In 2015 the
superior court issued the divorce decree and made findings
regarding child custody and property distribution. The mother
appeals, raising eight issues. We reverse and remand the
superior court's decision regarding the mother's
student loans and, if necessary, for a recalculation of the
equitable distribution of the marital estate. We affirm the
superior court's decision in all other respects.
II.
FACTS & PROCEEDINGS
A.
Facts
Jacqualine
Schaeffer[1] and Linus Mathis married in April 2002,
separated in March 2012, and divorced in April 2015. Two
children were born of the marriage, one in September 2002 and
the other in June 2004. Schaeffer began working part-time
toward the end of the marriage, after having been a
stay-at-home mother, and she studied interior design online.
She moved out of the marital home in October 2011 and filed
for divorce the following month. She then moved back into the
marital home, and she and Mathis sought marriage counseling.
They ultimately separated on March 19, 2012, when Schaeffer
allegedly hit Mathis in the head in front of their children,
after which he called the police and she was arrested and
charged with assault.
B.
Proceedings
1.
Interim motions and proceedings
In
November 2011 Schaeffer filed for divorce and requested joint
legal and shared physical custody of the children. She used a
form provided by the court system and did not check the
form's box for indicating that she had safety concerns
for herself or the children. In March 2012 Mathis filed a
petition for a domestic violence protective order, and he
filed a response to Schaeffer's complaint and asserted a
counterclaim requesting sole legal and primary physical
custody of the children because of "a history of
domestic violence in this marriage with [Schaeffer] being the
abuser." Schaeffer filed a reply denying that she had
committed domestic violence and alleging that Mathis was
"the primary perpetrator of domestic violence in the
marriage and parenting relationships." She requested
sole legal and primary physical custody.
In
April 2012 a hearing on the domestic violence and interim
custody issues was held before Superior Court Judge Kari
Kristiansen, who found that Mathis testified credibly and
that he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
Schaeffer had committed multiple acts of domestic violence
against him. The court issued a long-term protective order
because the protective order in connection with
Schaeffer's pending criminal assault case was not
protecting Mathis from contact with Schaeffer. The court
ordered Schaeffer to "enroll in a program for the
rehabilitation of perpetrators of domestic violence, and a
substance abuse treatment program." The court awarded
Mathis interim sole legal and primary physical custody and
granted Schaeffer visitation.
Schaeffer
moved for reconsideration, which was denied; she was also
ordered to pay child support. In July 2012 the superior court
ordered a custody investigation.
In
October Schaeffer filed a motion to modify interim custody
based on three alleged substantial changes in circumstances.
She alleged that Mathis had been abusive toward her and the
children and had regularly failed to meet the children's
needs since the entry of the interim custody order, that she
had transitioned to full-time employment and her new schedule
conflicted with the visitation arrangement, and that she had
"complied with and completed her court-ordered anger
management and alcohol counseling program requirements."
She requested sole legal and primary physical custody of the
children or, in the alternative, a shared week-on/week-off
custody schedule.
The day
after filing that motion, Schaeffer filed domestic violence
petitions on behalf of the children. She also appears to have
filed a report with the Alaska State Troopers alleging Mathis
caused injury to one of the children, and she filed a report
with the Office of Children's Services (OCS). In an
October 2012 affidavit Mathis described a State Trooper
incident that is consistent with the superior court's
later finding that Schaeffer encouraged one of the children
"to make false allegations to law enforcement that his
father grabbed him by the shoulder leaving a bruise."
Regarding the OCS report, Mathis related in the affidavit
that a caseworker was sent to the children's school and
that the investigation was closed because the caseworker
found nothing wrong with the children.
Mathis
responded to Schaeffer's motion to modify interim
custody, denying the allegations against him but recognizing
that Schaeffer "should have expanded visitation to
account for her job."
The
superior court issued an order modifying interim custody in
December 2012. The court noted that both Schaeffer and Mathis
had made serious allegations against each other without
providing much evidence. The court indicated that Schaeffer
had "made some progress toward meeting the assessment
and treatment goals" but that she had not demonstrated
that she had complied with the requirements. The court
granted Mathis continued interim sole legal custody of the
children. It set a week-on/week-off interim physical custody
schedule to take effect upon Schaeffer providing her
substance abuse assessment and two clean urinalysis test
results.
The
custody investigation ordered in July and was completed in
January 2013. The court custody investigator expressed
concern that the children may have been coached by Schaeffer
because of statements they made to him as well as information
from OCS that the older child had reported being coached.
Based in part on the concerns about coaching, the custody
investigator recommended that Mathis be given sole legal
custody. The custody investigator recommended a
week-on/week-off physical custody schedule.
In
October Mathis moved to modify the interim custody order,
which by then had changed to a week-on/week-off schedule; he
also moved for a partial no-contact order. The superior court
granted the partial no-contact order and reduced
Schaeffer's time with the children to three weekends each
month.
In
April 2014 Schaeffer filed a motion for updates to the
custody investigation and modification of interim custody. In
light of the children's experiences over the 19 months
since the children were interviewed and their alleged
increased maturity and ability to express themselves, she
requested "a re-interview of the boys and the parents
and anyone else that the investigator . . . believes is
relevant to any new information the boys may provide."
Her attorney filed a supporting affidavit indicating that the
attorney had contacted the custody investigator; she reported
that the investigator said that it was "not unreasonable
to update their interviews" and that completing an
update a couple of weeks before trial would be possible if a
court order were issued as soon as possible. According to
Schaeffer's attorney the investigator "believe[d]
that it would also be necessary to re-interview the parents
and any others that may be relevant to any new information
the children may provide." Mathis opposed the motion,
expressing "concern[] about the ongoing attempts to
manipulate the children and [the] fact that [Schaeffer's]
proposal appears to be a full custody investigation."
The
superior court denied Schaeffer's motion to modify
interim custody and to update the custody investigation,
finding that Schaeffer had "not established a factual
basis ... for subjecting the boys to another [custody
investigator] interview."
2.
The divorce trial
The
divorce trial was held before Superior Court Judge Vanessa
White in August and September 2014. The superior court heard
testimony from a number of witnesses, including Schaeffer,
Mathis, and the custody investigator. In April 2015 the court
entered the decree of divorce and issued Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
The
court distributed the marital estate, awarding the marital
home to Mathis and dividing retirement assets and debts. The
court cited testimony by Schaeffer regarding student loan
debt she incurred during the marriage, but it declined to
recognize that debt as marital debt based on (1) lack of
documentation, (2) its finding that Mathis credibly testified
that he had been told the loans were federally subsidized and
did not need to be repaid, and (3) Schaeffer's failure to
show that she had completed the course of study the loans
were taken out for. The court found that there was no dispute
regarding the distribution of personal property and that
Schaeffer and Mathis had accomplished that distribution
themselves. Because it found that Schaeffer and Mathis both
were in good health and had roughly equivalent earning
capacities, the court distributed the marital estate equally
and required Mathis to make a balancing payment to Schaeffer.
Mathis was permitted to deduct child support arrears
Schaeffer owed him from that balancing payment.
Regarding
child custody, the court addressed Schaeffer's
allegations that Mathis was physically and emotionally
abusive to Schaeffer and the children and found her
allegations not credible. The court found "by a
preponderance of the evidence that [Mathis] was the victim of
physical violence by [Schaeffer] on the date of the
parties' separation." Because the court found that
only one act of domestic violence was proved and because that
incident did not result in serious injury to Mathis, the
court determined that the domestic violence presumption in AS
25.24.150(g) did not apply.[2]
The
court found that both parents were capable of meeting the
children's needs but that Mathis was more motivated to
focus on the children's needs. The main reason for this
determination was the finding that Schaeffer "encouraged
the children on more than one occasion to lie to various
authorities (law enforcement, counselors) about [their]
father's conduct." The court also expressed concern
about Schaeffer having "coached the children in an
effort to justify her alcohol consumption." And it noted
that Schaeffer chose to take personal vacations instead of
spending her custodial time with the children twice during
the separation prior to trial and had allowed her work
commitments to sometimes interfere with her parenting
responsibilities for several days.
The
court found that Mathis had indicated his willingness to
maintain the family home and therefore could provide the
children with stability of place. The court expressed some
concern that Schaeffer "minimized the problems that
alcohol ha[d] caused in her relationships" and that she
had consumed alcohol while parenting in the past but gave
that factor little weight because of Schaeffer's
testimony that she was no longer using alcohol. The court
found that Schaeffer's false allegations of domestic
violence and decision to involve the children in making such
false allegations "suggested] that she [was] less
willing than [Mathis] to foster an open, loving and frequent
relationship between the boys and their other parent."
The court also found that communication between Schaeffer and
Mathis regarding the children was "poor to
nonexistent."
Based
on these findings, the court awarded Mathis sole legal and
shared physical custody. Schaeffer appeals, raising eight
issues relating to child custody, child support, property
distribution, and interim attorney's fees.
III.
...