Tyler Cue v. Desiree Challans

── Tyler Cue v. Desiree Challans ── Case No.: S19263 Court: Alaska Supreme Court Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA TYLER C., ) ) Supreme Court No. S-19263 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 3KN-23-00017 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION DESIRAE C., ) AND JUDGMENT* ) Appellee. ) No. 2137 – March 11, 2026 ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai, Jennifer K. Wells, Judge. Appearances: David A. Case, 49th State Law, LLC, Soldotna, for Appellant. No appearance by Appellee. Before: Carney, Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. INTRODUCTION A mother petitioned for a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against the father on behalf of their nine-year-old son, alleging that the father used excessive force when disciplining the child. After hearing testimony and taking other evidence, the superior court granted the DVPO. On appeal, the father argues that * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. the DVPO must be invalidated because the court committed various factual and legal errors. Observing no such errors, we affirm the superior court’s ruling. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Tyler C. and Desirae C. are the divorced parents of two children, nine- year-old Riley and six-year-old Evan.1 Litigation in April 2022 resulted in shared physical custody of the children under an order issued by the superior court. In January 2023 Desirae filed petitions for short- and long-term DVPOs against Tyler on behalf of both children. She alleged that it was unsafe for the children to be with Tyler because he physically and emotionally abused them. In the petition, Desirae detailed an incident in which Tyler allegedly threw a television in Riley’s direction, hit him with a belt, and grabbed his neck and dunked his head in the toilet, causing bruising on his neck and buttocks. Based on the allegations, a magistrate judge issued a short-term DVPO for both children against Tyler. The matter of the long-term DVPO was assigned to the same superior court judge who had previously presided over the parties’ custody case. The court held hearings and took evidence, including testimony from an Office of Children’s Services (OCS) investigator, as well as both Tyler and Desirae. The OCS investigator testified that after receiving a report of the incident between Tyler and Riley, he documented allegations that Tyler was intoxicated and, in a misguided attempt at discipline, had inappropriately punished Riley by dunking his head in the toilet several times. He testified that he observed injuries on Riley’s neck and marks on his face. He explained that OCS did not intend to open a child in need of aid case at that time because Desirae took immediate protective action by seeking a DVPO for Riley. On cross examination, the investigator acknowledged that Riley had 1 We use pseudonyms for the children and initials for the last names of the parents to protect the family’s privacy. -2- 2137 made an allegation of abuse against Tyler one year earlier that prompted an OCS investigation. But th