Shannon Baskin challenged custody rulings involving her three children and a permanent injunction restricting what the parents could say about the child-custody dispute. In one appeal, the superior court awarded primary physical custody of one child and addressed the parties’ parental rights; in a related appeal, it entered an injunction restricting speech about the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part in the custody appeal. It vacated the related injunction because the trial court had not made the findings necessary to justify a prior restraint on speech or narrowly tailored the restriction to an established risk of harm. The court also directed the trial court to apply the governing custody and res-judicata principles to the record rather than rely on unsupported conclusions. The appellate court did not decide the ultimate custody arrangement or authorize unrestricted speech in every circumstance. It held only that the existing findings and injunction could not stand. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in the related appeal. Two judges concurred.