Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Brian Ott v. Haley Runa (5/8/2020) sp-7450

Brian Ott v. Haley Runa (5/8/2020) sp-7450

          Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

          Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

          corrections@akcourts.us.  



                      THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                    



BRIAN  OTT,                                                   )  

                                                              )    Supreme  Court  No.  S-17551  

                               Appellant,                     )  

                                                                                                                            

                                                              )    Superior Court No. 3AN-17-06688 CI  

          v.                                                  )  

                                                                                       

                                                              )    O P I N I O N  

               

HALEY RUNA,                                                   )  

                                                                                                  

                                                              )    No. 7450 - May 8, 2020  

                               Appellee.                      )  

                                                              )  



                                                                                                          

                                          

                     Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                                       

                     Judicial District, Anchorage, Thomas A. Matthews, Judge.  



                                                                                                               

                     Appearances: Joshua P. Fink, The Law Office of Joshua P.  

                                                                                                  

                     Fink, LLC,  Anchorage, and Randi R. Vickers, Rockville,  

                                                                                                               

                     Maryland, for Appellant. Notice of nonparticipation filed by  

                                                                                               

                     Jacob  A.  Sonneborn,  Law  Office  of  Jacob  Sonneborn,  

                                              

                     Anchorage, for Appellee.  



                                                                                                    

                     Before:  Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,  

                                         

                     and Carney, Justices.  



                                         

                     WINFREE, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                            

                     Parents separated when their child was not yet two years old.  Following  



                                                                                                                          

contentious divorce proceedings, the superior court awarded equally shared physical  



                                                                                                                             

custody and joint legal custody of the child.  After trial, but before the court had issued  



                                                                                                                               

its child custody decision, the mother filed a motion to relocate with the child. The court  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                                  

declined to address the relocation motion in its custody decision. Following evidentiary  



                                                                                                                       

hearings on the relocation motion, adifferent judgeawarded themother primary physical  



                                                                                                                               

custody. The father appeals, arguing that the court made several errors when making its  



                                                                                               

custody modification decision.  Seeing no error, we affirm the decision.  



                                 

II.       FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  



                                                                         

          A.        Background Facts And Pretrial Proceedings  



                                                                                                                         

                    Brian  Ott  and  Haley  Runa  were  married  in  September  2014  in  North  



Carolina.  They lived in Washington for a time then moved to Anchorage, where their  



                                                                                                                          

daughter was born in September 2015.  Brian and Haley separated in January 2017;  



                                                                                                                              

Haley moved into a basement apartment in their home, and Brian continued living in the  



                                                                                                          

main  house.          They  began  an  informal 50/50  custody  arrangement,  with  exchanges  



                                            

happening every three days.  



                                                                                                                                    

                    Haley filed a divorce complaint in May, seeking primary physical custody.  



                                                                                                                            

Brian filed an answer in August, requesting shared physical custody.  Around this time  



                                                                                                                          

Haley refused to return the daughter to Brian's custody when it was time for his three- 



                                                                                                                         

day  rotation.         Brian  moved  to  reinstate  their  informal  custody  arrangement;  Haley  



                                                                                                                       

opposed, citing "multiple acts of domestic violence" and contending that Brian "should  



                                                                                                                     

be  allowed  only  supervised  visitation"  until  he  completed  a  domestic  violence  



                                                                                                                        

intervention course and addressed his substance abuse issues. The superior court entered  



                                                                                                                       

a temporary interim custody order in late August, reinstating the informal 50/50 custody  



                                                                                                                               

arrangement on the conditions that Brian's custody be supervised by his sister at all  



                                                                                                                   

times, that he refrain from consuming alcohol during his custody time, and that he not  



                                                                                  

have any direct contact with Haley regarding custody exchanges.  



                                                                                                                          

                    Brian and Haley reached an interim custody agreement, and the court  



                                                                                                                            

incorporated it in a September interim order. Under that agreement, Haley had sole legal  



                                                                                                                    

andprimary physical custody;Brian had visitation oneweek monthlywith oneadditional  



                                                               -2-                                                        7450
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

three-day period monthly.   Brian agreed to have an alcohol assessment, follow any  

                                                                                                                                  



treatment recommendations by the assessor, and undergo random urinalysis testing  

                                                                                                                              



during his one-week visitations and on the final day of every three-day custodial period.  

                                                                                                                                          



Although not mentioned in the interim order, Brian later completed a 36-week domestic  

                                                                                                                           



violence intervention program and a 12-hour co-parenting course.  The interim order  

                                                                                                                                



granted Haley possession of the marital home beginning in November.  

                                                                                               



           B.        Trial Proceedings And Order             



                     The superior court held evidentiary hearings over four days in July and  

                                                                                                                                   



August 2018.  Haley noted in her trial brief that she had begun considering moving out  

                                                                                                                                    



of state, and she requested "a ruling that she be allowed to do so without a return to  

                                                                                                                                     



court."   The court noted on the trial's final day that it would not be considering the  

                                                                                                                                   



possibility of Haley relocating.  

                                                   



                     In December, after the trial concluded but before the superior court issued  

                                                                                                                               



its custody decision, Haley filed a motion to relocate with the daughter. Haley indicated  

                                                                                                                          



that  she  "desire[d]  to  leave  the  state  to  move  to  Washington  where  her  boyfriend  

                                                                                                                         



reside[d]" and that she "[did] not feel that she [could] wait longer to begin the process  



of allowing for a determination of [her daughter's] best interests given her intent to  

                                                                                                                                     



relocate."  In an attached affidavit, Haley attested that she had a boyfriend who owned  

                                                                                                                              



a home in Washington and lived there with his son; that Haley and the daughter would  

                                                                                                                               



live with him; that he "puts a lot of effort into [the daughter] and has taken care of her  

                                                                                                 



when [Haley has] been at work," and the daughter "thinks he's great"; that Haley's  

                                                                                                                            



boyfriend "offered and is comfortably able to financially support [Haley] until [she is]  

                                                                                                                     



able to find a job"; that she had identified possibilities for work; that she had investigated  

                                                                                                                      



preschools and identified an option near her boyfriend's home; and that she had begun  

                                                                                                                               



establishing a community in his area, including his friends and family.  

                                                                                                    



                                                                  -3-                                                           7450
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                             In March the superior court issued its final decision without addressing                                                                 



Haley's motion to relocate.                                      The court found that Brian "has a history of domestic                                                   



violence"   and   that   he   therefore   was   subject   to   the   statutory   domestic   violence  

                             1     But  the  court  also  found  that  Brian  overcame  the  presumption  by  

presumption.                                                                                                                                                                           



completing  a  domestic  violence  intervention  program  and  refraining  from  abusing  

                                                                                                                                                                           

substances.2                  The court found that the evidence did not show by a preponderance that  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



Brian abused alcohol, that he was in need of alcohol abuse treatment, "or that his use of  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



alcohol will impact his ability to parent sober[ly] and safely."  

                                                                                                                                        



                             The superior court's other findings relating to custody addressed most of  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

the AS 25.24.150(c) best interests factors.3                                                        The court found that love and affection  

                                                                                                                                                                         



               1             AS 25.24.150(g) provides that a parent with a history of domestic violence                                                                    



"against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner" may not be awarded sole                                                                                            

or joint legal or physical custody.                    



               2             See  AS 25.24.150(h) (establishing conditions under which parent may  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

overcome domestic violence presumption).  

                                                                 



               3             AS 25.24.150(c) provides that:  

                                                                                        



                             In determining the best interests of the child the court shall  

                                                                                                                                                      

                             consider:  



                                            (1)        the  physical,  emotional,  mental,  religious,  and  

                                                                                                                                                        

                             social needs of the child;  

                                                                        



                                            (2)  the capability and desire of each parent to meet  

                                                                                                                                                     

                             these needs;  

                                          



                                            (3)  the child's preference if the child is of sufficient  

                                                                                                                                            

                             age and capacity to form a preference;  

                                                                                        



                                            (4)  the love and affection existing between the child  

                                                                                                                                                     

                             and each parent;  

                                                  



                                            (5)  the length of time the child has lived in a stable,  

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                (continued...)  



                                                                                           -4-                                                                                    7450
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

existedbetween each parent and their daughterand that both parents                                                                                                                   "ha[d]thecapability          



and desire to meet her needs."                                                     The court also found that "remarkably," each parent had                                                                                        



"demonstrated a willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close relationship                                                                                                                    



between [the daughter] and the other parent."                                                                                   The court noted that "there were a few                                                          



communications where [Brian] was being difficult or petty" and that he occasionally                                                                                                                        



would "continue to initiate direct exchanges or try to engage in settlement talks" even                                                                                                                                        



after Haley had requested they not have direct contact. Despite these actions, Haley still                                                                                                                                        



"continued to demonstrate reasonableness and cooperation."                                                                                                             



                                     The superior court concluded that, based on the statutory best interests                                                                                                        



factors, a 50/50 physical custody arrangement was in the child's best interests. The court                                                                                                                                     



                  3	                 (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                       

                                     satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining  

                                     continuity;  



                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                       (6)           the  willingness  and  ability  of  each  parent  to  

                                                                                                                                                                        

                                     facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                    between the other parent and the child, except that the court  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                    may not consider this willingness and ability if one parent  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                     shows that the other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                     in domestic violence against the parent or a child, and that a  

                                                                                                                                                                              

                                     continuing relationship with the other parent will endanger  

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                    the health or safety of either the parent or the child;  



                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                       (7)  any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                     child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history  

                                                                                                       

                                     of violence between the parents;  



                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                       (8)  evidence that substance abuse by either parent or  

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                     other membersofthehouseholddirectlyaffects theemotional  

                                                                                                                     

                                     or physical well-being of the child;  



                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                       (9)  other factors that the court considers pertinent.  



                                                                                                                  -5-	                                                                                                         7450
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                                                                                                      

ordered shared legal custody but, in the event of a disagreement over important decisions  



                                                                                                        

about the child, Haley would have final decision-making authority.  



                                                                   

          C.        Post-Trial Proceedings And Appeal  



                                                                               

                    Following the March decision, Haley and Brian's case was reassigned to  



                                                                                                                               

a different superior court judge. The court scheduled an April evidentiary hearing on the  



                                                                                                                             

relocation issue.  The relocation hearing spanned three days in April and May, and only  



                                          

Haley and Brian testified.  



                                                                                                                               

                    Haley testified that her affidavit statementscontinuedto betrue and that she  



                                                                                                                                

had made additional employment contacts.  She testified that if she were to move to  



                                                                                                                                

Washington, she could encourage a relationship between Brian and the daughter by  



                                                                                                                                

facilitating electronic communications, accommodating him if he wished to visit in  



                                                                                                                              

Washington, and facilitating trips for the daughter to visit in Alaska.  She testified that  



                                                                                                                            

Brian had been uncooperative and inflexible in custody scheduling and exchanges since  



                                                                                                                                 

the August 2018 evidentiary hearing and that "he doesn't do things prioritizing what is  



                                                                                                                                     

best for [our daughter]," but he instead acts in ways intended "to get back at [Haley]."  



                                                                                                                       

Haley also testified that custody exchanges had become very difficult, that the daughter  



                                                                                                                                

appeared very upset during exchanges, and that Haley believed Brian was trying to  



                                                                                                                          

manipulate the daughter to feel that returning to her mother was a bad thing.   Haley  



                                                                                                                           

further testified that she had asked to switch to only indirect exchanges but that Brian  



                                                                                                                               

insisted on continuing direct exchanges.  On cross-examination Haley testified that she  



                                                                                                                              

had been in contact with firms in Washington about potential jobs, that her boyfriend had  



                                                                                                                               

offered to financially support her until she found a job but she also had savings, that she  



                                                                                                                                  

had begun building a community in Washington, and that she believed she could be a  



                                                                

better mother by living with a supportive partner.  



                                                                                                                            

                    Brian disputedmuch ofHaley'stestimonyregardingtheirexchanges. Brian  



                                                                                                                               

also testified at length about his relationship with the daughter, how he supported her  



                                                               -6-                                                         7450
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

 emotionally and financially, and about the social support his community and family in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



Anchorage provided the daughter.                                                                                                             



                                                                             In July 2019 the superior court issued a decision on Haley's motion to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



relocate.     The   court   found   Haley's  motivation   for   relocating   to   Washington   was  



legitimate,   finding   Brian   had   "offer[ed]   nothing   concrete   to  suggest   that   Haley   is  



proposing to move in 'order to prevent Brian's relationship with [the daughter].' "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           The  



 court found that Haley was "motivated to start a new life for herself plain and simple."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                             The superior court conducted a thorough analysis of the AS 25.24.150(c)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



best interests factors. The court did not make detailed findings about factors (1) (child's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs), (3) (child's preference for one                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



parent),   (4)   (child's love                                                                                                                       and  affection   for   each parent),                                                                                                                                                         (7)   (evidence of domestic                                                                           



violence), or (8) (substance abuse), noting that these factors were neutral and did not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                         4           For factor (2), the court found both parents had the  

 favor one parent over the other.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 capability and desire to meet the child's needs, but it also found persuasive Haley's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 argument that Brian was "putting on a show" for the court. The court found that Brian's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                      4                                      The court noted under factor (7) that the previous judge had found Brian                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



has a history of domestic violence but met his burden to overcome the domestic violence                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

presumption and that this factor therefore was neutral. Although in this case the outcome                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

would not change, we note that the best interests factor found at AS 25.24.150(c)(7) is                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 distinct fromthe                                                                            domestic violence presumption described at AS 25.24.150(g). A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                parent  

may overcome the domestic violence presumption, but a history of domestic violence                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 still may be a relevant factor in determining which custody configuration is in the child's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

best interests.                                                                See Limeres v. Limeres                                                                                                                    , 320 P.3d 291, 299 (Alaska 2014) ("Evidence of                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 domestic violence is important to child custody in two statutory contexts. First, the court                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

must   consider   'any   evidence   of   domestic   violence   .  .  .   in  the   proposed   custodial  

household' in its best interests determination. Second, if the court finds that a parent has                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 a history of perpetrating domestic violence, a rebuttable presumption arises against                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 granting that parent custody or unsupervised visitation." (citations omitted) (quoting                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

AS 25.24.150(c)(7))).   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -7-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7450
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                                                             

testimony and demeanor "suggest[ed] that he [was] trying too hard to make a good  



                                                                                                                                 

impression" and "question[ed] whether Brian would be fully capable and desirous of  



                                                                                                                            

being a 'full-time' [d]ad if Haley were in Washington."  On the whole, the court found  



                              

this factor favored Haley.  



                                                                                                                                

                    Regarding the length of time the child has spent in a stable environment and  



                                                                                                                                 

the  desirability  of  continuity,  factor  (5),  the  court  found  stability  for  the  child  in  



                                                                                                                       

Anchorage and, if restricted to geographic location, that this factor would "slightly  



                                                                                                                                

favor" Brian. But the court noted that this factor "also considers relational continuity and  



                                                                                                                    

stability" and that "[Haley's] relationship appears . . . to be more stable and continuous  



                                                                                                                       

than[Brian's]." The court found that, although thechild would besubstantiallyimpacted  



                                                                                

by either custody choice, this factor favored Haley.  



                                                                                                                     

                    As to each parent's willingness and ability to allow a close and continuing  



                                                                                                                               

relationship between the child and the other parent, factor (6), the court found that this  



                                                                                                                         

factor  "equally  disfavored"  both  parents,  citing  both  Brian's  "tendency  toward  



                                                                                                                              

manipulative behavior" and Haley's "narrow[] focus on Brian's shortcomings."  The  



                                                                                                                            

court did not find, as Brian contended, that Haley had been "making a concerted effort  



                                                                                                               

to not allow him to be part of [the daughter's] life," but the court noted concern about  



                                                                                    

how Haley would behave if she had primary custody.  



                                                                                                                            

                    The court concluded that if Haley were to move to Washington and Brian  



                                                                                                                          

were to stay in Anchorage, the child's best interests would be met by Haley having  



                                                                                                          

primary physical custody during the school year.  The court granted Brian custody for  



                                                                                                     

up to eight weeks during the summer, initially broken into two four-week segments  



                                                                                                                             

separated by a four-week segment with Haley.   The court declined to modify legal  



                                                                                                                              

custody, continuing the order that the parents share legal custody with Haley having final  



                                                       

say in the event of a disagreement.  



                                                                -8-                                                         7450
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                                                Brian appeals the superior court's order.                                                                                                       He contends that the court erred                                                                 



by failing to give "substantial deference" to the original custody decision, specifically                                                                                                                                                                                 



by impermissibly reweighing evidence regarding his capability and desire to meet the                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 child's needs and his willingness to foster a relationship between the child and Haley.                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



Brian also contends that the court erred by failing to consider Haley's alleged "lingering                                                                                                                                                                                      



illegitimate   reasons"   for   moving   to   Washington,   both   in   its   determination  on   the  



threshold legitimacy question and in its best interests analysis.                                                                                                                                                              Finally, Brian contends                              



that the court erred by improperly weighing the emotional and geographic stability                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 factor, in particular by failing to consider the child's ties to her extended family in                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Anchorage.   Haley did not participate in this appeal.                                                                                                                                      



III.                    STANDARD OF REVIEW                                                



                                                "Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether a proposed                                                                                                                                                             



 child-custody modification is in the child's best interests. We will set aside the superior                                                                                                                                                                                          



 court's best interests determination only if the trial court abused its discretion or if the   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         5  

 fact findings on which the determination is based are clearly erroneous."                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 "The trial  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 court's factual findings enjoy particular deferencewhen they are based 'primarily on oral  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

testimony, because the trial court, not this court, judges the credibility of witnesses and  



                                                                                                                6  

                                                                                                           

weighs conflicting evidence.' " 



                                                "Abuse of discretion is established if the trial court considered improper  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 factors in making its custody determination, failed to consider statutorily mandated  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                        5                      Bruce H. v. Jennifer L.                                                         , 407 P.3d 432, 436 (Alaska 2017) (quoting                                                                                                                Rego v.   



Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)).                                                                                 



                        6                       Sheffield v. Sheffield, 265 P.3d 332, 335 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Josephine  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

B. v. State, Dep't of Health &Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 174 P.3d 217, 222  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 (Alaska 2007)).  

                              



                                                                                                                                                     -9-                                                                                                                                          7450
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                7  

factors, or assigned disproportionate weight to particular factors while ignoring others."                                                          



                                                                                                                                      

"A factual finding is erroneous if, 'based on a review of the entire record, the finding  

                                                                                                                                        8   We  

                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                      

leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.' " 



review de novo whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard, "adopting  

                                                                                                                                  

the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy."9  

                                                                                                                                           



IV.        DISCUSSION  



                       A  parent's  anticipated  relocation  constitutes  a  substantial  change  in  

                                                                                                                                              

circumstances  sufficient  to  justify  considering  a  physical  custody  modification.10  

                                                                                                                                                    

Evaluating a motion to relocate with a child requires a two-step analysis.11   The superior  

                                                                                                                                     



court first must assess the legitimacy of the move, and in particular whether the move is  

                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                   12   Once the court  

"primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult."                                                                      

                                                                                                   



determines the reasons for the move are legitimate, the court next considers the child's  

                                                                                                                                       



           7          Joy B. v. Everett B.             , 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting                                Hamilton  



v.  Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)).                       



           8          Bruce H., 407 P.3d at 436 (quoting Rego, 259 P.3d at 452).  

                                                                                                                   



           9          Id. (quoting Rego, 259 P.3d at 452) (alteration omitted).  

                                                                                                       



           10          See id. at 435 ("[B]ecause [the mother] was planning to relocate with their  

                                                                                                                                           

son, the court determined she had alleged a substantial change in circumstances.");  

                                                                                                                    

Nelson  v.  Nelson,  263  P.3d  49,  52-53  (Alaska  2011)  ("Though  the  change-of- 

                                                                                                                               

circumstances rule is 'designed to discourage discontented parents from continually  

                                                                                                                               

renewing custody proceedings,' parents should not be discouraged from planning ahead  

                                                                                                                                         

and  seeking  to  modify  custody  arrangements  in  advance  of  an  anticipated  move."  

                                                                                                                                                    

(quoting Nichols v. Mandelin, 790 P.2d 1367, 1372 (Alaska 1990))); see also Judd v.  

                                                                                                                                      

Burns, 397 P.3d 331, 341 & n. 35 (Alaska 2017) (noting that although "an out-of-state  

                                                                                                                               

move is a substantial change for  physical custody purposes,  it is not necessarily  a  

                                                                                                                                                

substantial change for legal custody purposes").  

                                                                                   



           11         Bruce H., 407 P.3d at 437.  

                                                             



           12         Id. (quoting Rego, 259 P.3d at 453).  

                                                                           



                                                                      -10-                                                               7450
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                                                                  13  

best interests, with no presumption favoring either parent.                                            The child's best interests are             



                                                                                                                      14  

 evaluated based on the nine factors identified at AS 25.24.150(c).                                                                   

                                                                                                                           "The relocating  



                                                                                                                                                     

parent secures primary [physical] custody by showing that living with that parent in a  



                                                                           

 new environment better serves the child's interests than living with the other parent in  



                                     15  

                     

 the current location." 



                                                                                                                                           

            A.	         The  Superior  Court  Applied  The  Correct  Legal  Standard  When  

                                                                                                    

                        Determining The Legitimacy Of Haley's Relocation.  



                                                                                                                                       

                        Brian contends that thesuperior court "misappliedthelegitimacy standard"  



                                                                                                                                            

by "focusing only on Haley's primary motivation and failing to address her mixed  



                                                                                                                                                 

 motives."  On multiple occasions we have held that a move is legitimate "if it is not  



                                                                                                                   16  

                                                                                                                                           

primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult."                                                    Brian cites Eniero  



                 17  

                                                                                                                                                  

 v. Brekke          for the proposition that a court must "apply a mixed motives analysis to the  



                                                                                                                                    

 legitimacy  question,"  but  in  that  decision  we  repeated  that  a  move  is  considered  



                                                                                                                                  18  

                                                                                                                   

 legitimate if it is not primarily motivated to make visitation more difficult. 



                        The superior court found that Haley "was candid and forthright in her  

                                                                                                                                                 



 testimony" and that her motivation to move "seems clearly designed to foster a new life  

                                                                                                                                                  



 for herself . . . with her new boyfriend."  The court concluded that "Haley's motivation  

                                                                                                                                     



            13         Id.  



            14          See  supra  note  3.  



            15         Rego,  259  P.3d  at  453.  



            16          See id., (emphasis added) (citing  Moeller-Prokosch  v. Prokosch, 27 P.3d  



 314,  316  (Alaska  2001));  see  also  Bruce  H.,  407 P.3d at 437 ("We  do  not  require  the  

 moving  parent  to  prove  a  compelling  reason  to  move  so  long  as  the  primary  motivation  

 is  not  limiting  visitation  with  the  other  parent.").  



            17          192 P.3d 147 (Alaska 2008).  

                                                               



            18         Id. at 150.  

                                  



                                                                        -11-	                                                                 7450
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

 for the move is legitimate." Based on our clearly established legal standard, the court did                                                                                                                                                                                        



 not err when making this determination.                                             



                       B.	                   The Superior Court Did Not Fail To Consider Secondary Motives In                                                                                                                                                                         

                                             Its Best Interests Analysis.                                 



                                             Brian contends that the superior court also erred by failing to consider                                                                                                                                            



 Haley's  alleged motive to limit his visitation with the daughter in its best interests                                                                                                                                                                         



 analysis.    



                                             Brian is correct that we have held secondary "illegitimate" reasons for a                                                                                                                                                                    



 move need not be ignored for purposes of the best interests analysis simply because the                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                                                                                  19  

 primary motivation was found to be legitimate.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                            But the superior court considered  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 whether Haley's move might be partly motivated by limiting the daughter's contact with  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 Brian.  The court found Haley's testimony "candid and forthright," and it found Brian's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 "vague assertions" about her illegitimate motivations were without merit. The court also  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 expressly found that Haley was not, as Brian claimed, "making a concerted effort to"  



                                                                                                                                   

 exclude Brian from the daughter's life.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                             The record supports the superior court's findings. In Haley's affidavit and  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 testimony, she provided detailed descriptions of her relationship with her boyfriend; her  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

job prospects in Washington; her investigation into school quality and identification of  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 a promising preschool near her boyfriend's house; and the community she had begun to  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 establish in the area.  Only twice did Haley's testimony raise the possibility that she  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 wished to isolate the daughter from Brian.  First, during a custody hearing prior to the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 divorce trial when discussing Brian's domestic violence history, Haley testified that she  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 did not want the daughter "to be raised knowing that it's okay to treat people in an  



                       19                    See id.                ("[W]e have not suggested that the best interests analysis cannot                                                                                                                                  



 take into account how a move would exacerbate problems such as a parent's willingness                                                                                                                                                                   

 to foster communication between the child and the other parent.").                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                         -12-	                                                                                                                                7450
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

abusive way" and did not "want her to learn to be abused, basically."                                                                                                Haley continued:                            



"I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking that.                                                                            I don't want her to think that this                                    



is okay. I don't want her to be exposed to these behaviors." Later, during the relocation                                                                                              



hearing, Haley testified that she "think[s] he's controlling and manipulative" and that she                                                                                                            



is "concerned about what he's going to do to [the daughter]."                                                                                        



                                We have found an illegitimate motive after a parent "repeatedly changed                                                                                    



her plans" and "did not provide contact information or adequate notice of her move to                                                                                             

                         20 we considered the parent's repeated unwillingness to support a relationship  

the court";                                                                                                                                                                      



between  a  child  and  the  other  parent,  such  as  a  history  of  cancelling  scheduled  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

visitations, as evidence of an improper motive.21                                                                        We also have inferred an improper  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



motive  from  a  parent's  inability  to  articulate  strong  reasons  for  moving  and  an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                   22    We have not inferred an improper motive merely  

underdeveloped employment plan.                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                        



from one parent's hostility toward the other or from one parent's fear of the other  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



parent's influence on a child, and we decline to do so here.  

                                                                                                                                               



                                The superior court considered all the evidence when it declined to find that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



Haley deliberately sought to limit Brian's ability to see the daughter.  And the court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



expressly considered whether each parent would facilitate a relationship between the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                20              Mengisteab  v.  Oates,  425  P.3d  80,  86  (Alaska  2018).  



                21              Id.  



                22              See  Eniero,   192  P.3d  at   153  (imputing  illegitimate  motive  to  mother  who  



planned  to  work  for  her  father's  air  charter  business,  which  owned  only  one  airplane  and  

had  not secured any  contracts  or  FAA  approval).  Brian contends  that  Haley's  not  yet  

having  secured  employment  is  analogous  to  Eniero's  ill-conceived  employment  plan.   

But  Haley  testified  that  she  had  savings  to  support  herself,   that  her  boyfriend  had  offered  

financial   support,   and,  most  importantly,  that   she  had   a   career  with   a  long  history   of  

stable   employment   and   already   had   established  a   number   of   job   prospects.     This  

argument  is  meritless.  



                                                                                                   -13-                                                                                            7450
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

child and the other parent, finding that there were concerns about both parents; this                                                                                                                



seems  to   be   the   more   appropriate   focus   of   Brian's   argument.     Because   the   record  



supports the court's finding that Haley was not motivated by "illegitimate" secondary                                                                                                 



motives, the court did not err by "failing to use the mixed motives analysis" in its best                          



interests determination.                                  



                C.	             The Superior Court Did Not Fail To Give Substantial Deference To                                                                                                       

                                The Original Custody Order.                              



                                We have held that a superior court considering a custody modification                                                                          



request    "must    give    deference    to    the    findings    made    in    the    original   custody  



                                     23  

determination."                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                This  rule  is  intended  to  prevent  a  court  changing  a  custody  



                                                                                                                                                                                                          24  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

determination based solely on reweighing the original custody proceeding evidence. 



                                                                                                                                                                                       

Brian contendsthat the court impermissibly reweighed evidence regarding the capability  



                                                                                                                                                                                                     

and desire of each parent to meet the daughter's needs, given the original findings that  



                                                                                                                                                                                                   

"love and affection exists between [the child] and both of her parents" and that both  



                                                                                                                                                                                                    

parents "have the capability and desire to meet her needs."  Brian suggests that in light  



                                                                                                                                                                                                          

of these findings the court erred by finding the "capability and desire of each parent to  



                                                                                                          

meet [the daughter's] needs" factor favored Haley.  



                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                Thesuperior court determinedthat this factor favored Haleyin part because  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Brian's "testimony and demeanor in court" indicated he was "putting on a show" and  



                                                                                                                                                                                                 

"trying  too  hard  to make a good  impression."                                                                        Apparently on  this basis,  the court  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

questioned "whether Brian would be fully capable and desirous of being a 'full-time'  



                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 [d]ad if Haley were in Washington."  Nothing in these findings indicates that the court  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

was re-evaluating the divorce trial evidence.  Unlike our Gratrix v. Gratrix finding that  



                23              Gratrix  v.  Gratrix,  652  P.2d  76,  81  (Alaska   1982).  



                24              Id.  



                                                                                                  -14-                                                                                                     7450  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

the court had made no mention of the previous custody determination and had reweighed                                                   



                                                                                                            25  

evidence of a parent's "lifestyle and general social mores,"                                                                                 

                                                                                                                in this case the court's  



                                                                                                                       26  

                                                                                                    

finding appears to be based on its perception of Brian's credibility. 



                                                                                                                                              

                        Brian also contends that the superior court failed to give sufficient weight  



                                                                                                                                                

to the original findings regarding his fitness as a father. As in Gratrix, in this case "there  



                                                                                                                                                   

was no discussion" of the findings in the previous order relating to Brian's desire and  



                                                                                                                                                     

capability to meet the daughter's needs.  Brian's argument fails, however, because the  



                                                                                                                                                    

original finding that he had the capability and desire to meet the daughter's needs is not  



                                                                                                                                                     

inconsistent with the court's finding that this factor nonetheless favored Haley.  As we  



                                                                                                                                                        

have previously noted, courts making best interests determinations in cases involving a  

                                                                                                                                    27  Although  

                                                                                                                                         

parent's relocation "must assume that the legitimate move will take place." 



courts  consider  the  same  best  interests  factors  as  in  custody  cases  not  involving  

                                                                                                                                        



relocation, the inquiry is decidedly different.  In cases involving a parent's relocation to  

                                                                                                                                                       



distances too great for shared custody to be practical, the court must  grant primary  

                                                                                                                                            

                                                       28   Courts often find both parents sufficiently satisfy the  

physical custody to one parent.                                                                                                                      

                                            



            25         Id.  at 81-82.   



            26          Cf. Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432, 437 (Alaska 2017) ("When a  

                                                                                                                                                        

legitimacy finding is based on a court's assessment of a parent's credibility, we 'give it  

                                                                                                                                                        

particular deference.' " (quoting Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202, 214 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                            

2014))).  



            27         Id. at 437 (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 453 (Alaska 2011)).  

                                                                                                                                     



            28          See  Rego,  259  P.3d  at  453  ("The  relocating  parent  secures  [primary]  

                                                                                                                                        

physical custody by showing that living with that parent in a new environment better  

                                                                                                                                                

serves the child's interests than living with the other parent in the current location."). We  

                                                                                                                                                    

use "primary" and "shared" custody in their generic meanings here, without regard to the  

                                                                                                                                                     

formulaic meanings of the terms in Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)-(b) (defining various  

                                                                                                                                             

custody forms for child support calculations).  

                                                          



                                                                         -15-                                                                    7450
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

best interests factors to warrant joint custody, but a court adjudicating a case involving                                                                                                               



one parent's relocation                                         is required                     to   determine which                                   parent   better   satisfies  those  



factors.   It therefore is entirely consistent for a court to order joint custody when both                                                                                                                            



parents live in the same community, but nonetheless find that factors favor one parent                                                                              



over the other if one parent chooses to relocate.                                                     



                                   That situation was precisely what the superior court faced in this case. The                                                                                                         



court found that "both parties have the capability and desire to meet [the daughter's]                                                                                                              

                    29  but, expressing some uncertainty about Brian, the court found that this factor  

needs,"                                                                                                                                                                                                            



favored Haley. Similarly,thecourt found thatthechild "would be substantially impacted  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



by either custody choice" but that this factor nonetheless favored Haley.   The court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



concluded that "[s]o long as the parties both live in the same geographical area, then they  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



should continue to share physical custody 50/50 as ordered," but that "[u]pon [Haley's]  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



move to Washington, [Haley] will be awarded primary physical custody."  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                  D.	              The  Superior  Court  Did  Not  Abuse  Its  Discretion  By  Failing  To  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                   Consider The Importance Of The Child's Extended Family Ties In  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                   Anchorage.  



                                   Finally,  Brian  contends  that  the  superior  court  erred  by  failing  to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



sufficiently consider the emotional stability extended family in Anchorage provided the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

daughter. Brian notes our recent Saffir v. Wheeler30  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                      decision, "acknowledg[ing] that the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

child's relationship with extended family could be properly considered as part of [the  

                                                                                                                31  Brian contends that "[i]f a relationship can  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

emotional and geographic stability factor]." 



be considered, then it is relevant, and failure to consider it is error."  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



                  29               See  AS 25.24.150(c)(2).   



                 30                436 P.3d 1009 (Alaska 2019).                                  



                 31                Id.  at 1013 n.12.            



                                                                                                            -16-	                                                                                                    7450
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                                                                       This argument fails because the superior court considered all the available                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 evidence, including testimony about the child's community of family and friends, when                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



it concluded that "[t]he impact on [the child] of separating her from [Haley] appears to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

be greater (all other things being equal) than the impact of separating [her] from[Brian]."  



Having considered the evidence before it, the court did not err by finding this factor                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 favored Haley.   



V.                                  CONCLUSION  



                                                                       We AFFIRM the superior court's order modifying custody.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -17-                                                                                                                                                                                                                 7450
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC