Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090 (2026)
Factors for consideration in awarding shared child custody
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.20.090. Factors for consideration in awarding shared child custody.
In determining whether to award shared custody of a child the court shall consider
(1) the child's preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference;
(2) the needs of the child;
(3) the stability of the home environment likely to be offered by each parent;
(4) the education of the child;
(5) the advantages of keeping the child in the community where the child presently resides;
(6) the optimal time for the child to spend with each parent considering
(A) the actual time spent with each parent;
(B) the proximity of each parent to the other and to the school in which the child is enrolled;
(C) the feasibility of travel between the parents;
(D) special needs unique to the child that may be better met by one parent than the other;
(E) 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 findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator;
(8) any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents;
(9) evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child;
(10) other factors the court considers pertinent.
In determining whether to award shared custody of a child the court shall consider
(1) the child's preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference;
(2) the needs of the child;
(3) the stability of the home environment likely to be offered by each parent;
(4) the education of the child;
(5) the advantages of keeping the child in the community where the child presently resides;
(6) the optimal time for the child to spend with each parent considering
(A) the actual time spent with each parent;
(B) the proximity of each parent to the other and to the school in which the child is enrolled;
(C) the feasibility of travel between the parents;
(D) special needs unique to the child that may be better met by one parent than the other;
(E) 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 findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator;
(8) any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents;
(9) evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child;
(10) other factors the court considers pertinent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991).
Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991). “[1] Her findings of fact and conclusions of law indicate, however, that she properly based her decision on the factors outlined in AS 25.20.090: [2] *899 [I]t is in the best interest of the children to award [Ms.”
McClain v. McClain, 716 P.2d 381 (Alaska 1986). “” AS 25.20.090 lists the factors that the trial court should consider in determining whether to award shared custody of a child.”
West v. Lawson, 951 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1998). “This concern is echoed in the “[fjaetors for consideration in awarding shared child custody” contained in AS 25.20.090. In promulgating this statute, the legislature recognized the importance of maintaining stability in a child’s life in the context of shared custody…”
Bell v. Bell, 794 P.2d 97 (Alaska 1990). “At the time of trial, AS 25.20.090 provided: In determining whether to award shared custody of a child the court shall consider (1) the child’s preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference; (2) the needs of the child; (3) the stability of the…”
Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993 (Alaska 2002). “For example, AS 25.20.090(6)(A) provides that the court, "[in determining whether to award shared custody of a child .”
Ulsher v. Ulsher, 867 P.2d 819 (Alaska 1994). “See AS 25.20.090(4)-(6). The court was also concerned about separating Alexandra from her mother for extended periods.”
J.L.P. v. V.L.A., 30 P.3d 590 (Alaska 2001). “The superior court was not required to perform a best-interests analysis or consider an updated child custo, dy report or the AS 25.20.0900 factors. Jerry argues that the superior court must consider specific factors under AS 25.”
Holl v. Holl, 815 P.2d 379 (Alaska 1991). “AS 25.20.090(3) requires that the court consider "the stability of the home environment likely to be offered by each parent.”
Carstens v. Carstens, 867 P.2d 805 (Alaska 1994). “Accordingly, in 1989 the Alaska Legislature amended AS 25.20.090 and AS 25.24.150 to include any "history of violence between the parents" as a factor to be considered in custody determinations.”
Carter v. Novotny, 779 P.2d 1195 (Alaska 1989). “060, AS 25.20.090 and AS 25.24.-150(c). The trial court’s findings regarding termination of parental rights will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
Doe v. Thompson, 373 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2016). “See Alaska Stat. §§ 25.20.090 (2000); 25.24.150 (2000).”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(1) — 1 case
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(2) — 1 case
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(3) — 1 case
Holl v. Holl, 815 P.2d 379 (Alaska 1991). “AS 25.20.090(3) requires that the court consider "the stability of the home environment likely to be offered by each parent.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(4) — 1 case
Ulsher v. Ulsher, 867 P.2d 819 (Alaska 1994). “See AS 25.20.090(4)-(6). The court was also concerned about separating Alexandra from her mother for extended periods.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(5) — 1 case
West v. Lawson, 951 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1998). “This concern is echoed in the “[fjaetors for consideration in awarding shared child custody” contained in AS 25.20.090. In promulgating this statute, the legislature recognized the importance of maintaining stability in a child’s life in the context of shared custody…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(6)(A) — 1 case
Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993 (Alaska 2002). “For example, AS 25.20.090(6)(A) provides that the court, "[in determining whether to award shared custody of a child .”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(6)(B) — 1 case
West v. Lawson, 951 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1998). “This concern is echoed in the “[fjaetors for consideration in awarding shared child custody” contained in AS 25.20.090. In promulgating this statute, the legislature recognized the importance of maintaining stability in a child’s life in the context of shared custody…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(6)(C) — 1 case
West v. Lawson, 951 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1998). “This concern is echoed in the “[fjaetors for consideration in awarding shared child custody” contained in AS 25.20.090. In promulgating this statute, the legislature recognized the importance of maintaining stability in a child’s life in the context of shared custody…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(6)(E) — 2 cases
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
Michael M. v. Catherine T. (Alaska 2016).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(8) — 3 cases
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
Wild Bill Williams v. Rachel C. Daniel (Alaska 2025).
Michael M. v. Catherine T. (Alaska 2016).
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090(9) — 2 cases
McClain v. McClain, 716 P.2d 381 (Alaska 1986). “” AS 25.20.090 lists the factors that the trial court should consider in determining whether to award shared custody of a child.”
Daniel Bret Hardy Jr. v. Cassandra Melissa Nix (Alaska 2020). “5 When determining whether to award shared custody, factors listed in AS 25.20.090 may be considered.6 Hardy argues that the “court failed to consider any of the factors listed in AS 25.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.