Vince B. v. Sarah B.

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a long-term domestic violence protective order issued against Vince B. for stalking his former wife, Sarah B. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by addressing the proposed testimony of the parties’ ten-year-old son, and that neither ripeness nor res judicata barred consideration of prior conduct. The court also upheld the finding that Vince’s conduct constituted second-degree stalking under Alaska law.

Holdings

1. The superior court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by sparing the child from testifying and considering the substance of the testimony Vince represented the child would give.
2. The superior court's warning that future misconduct could support a stalking protective order was a warning rather than a ruling and therefore did not violate the doctrine of ripeness.
3. Res judicata did not bar the superior court from considering conduct presented in the earlier protective-order proceeding when determining whether later conduct formed a stalking course of conduct.
4. The superior court did not clearly err in finding that Vince engaged in a course of conduct involving repeated nonconsensual contacts that recklessly placed Sarah in fear of physical injury, and its findings adequately supported the protective order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion or violated procedural due process by accepting the substance of a ten-year-old child's proposed testimony without requiring the child to testify in open court.
2. Whether the superior court's warning in the first protective-order proceeding that future misconduct could support a stalking finding violated ripeness principles.
3. Whether res judicata barred the superior court from considering conduct underlying the previously denied protective-order petition when deciding whether later conduct formed a stalking course of conduct.
4. Whether the superior court clearly erred or failed to make adequate findings in concluding that Vince knowingly engaged in repeated nonconsensual contacts that recklessly placed Sarah in fear of physical injury.

Disposition

affirmed