Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.20.100 (2026)
Reasons for denial to be set out
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.20.100. Reasons for denial to be set out.
If a parent or the guardian ad litem requests shared custody of a child and the court denies the request, the reasons for the denial shall be stated on the record.
If a parent or the guardian ad litem requests shared custody of a child and the court denies the request, the reasons for the denial shall be stated on the record.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1987–2009 · leading case: Tillmon v. Tillmon, 189 P.3d 1022 (Alaska 2008).
Tillmon v. Tillmon, 189 P.3d 1022 (Alaska 2008). “Clifton argues that the trial court failed to adequately justify awarding primary physical custody to Susan as required by AS 25.20.100, which states: "If a parent .”
J.L.P. v. V.L.A., 30 P.3d 590 (Alaska 2001). “because: (1) it did not conduct a "complete custody modification proceeding, which afforded him the opportunity to present evidence needed for the court to make an informed decision that was in the best interest of [Dora]"; (2) it made "no mention of any of the [statutory…”
Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009). “" (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting AS 25.20.100(c), and citing Barreff v. Alguire, 35 P.”
Holl v. Holl, 815 P.2d 379 (Alaska 1991). “However, the trial court chose not to believe Roger on critical matters, and set forth its reasons for denying shared custody, as is required of it by AS 25.20.100. Given the evidence in the record, and given the deference due the trial court's findings and the exercise of its…”
Miller v. Miller, 739 P.2d 163 (Alaska 1987). “060; AS 25.20.100. Moreover, the trial court has discretion to allow the parties to develop a visitation schedule independently.”
Jlp v. Vla, 30 P.3d 590 (Alaska 2001). “because: (1) it did not conduct a "complete custody modification proceeding, which afforded him the opportunity to present evidence needed for the court to make an informed decision that was in the best interest of [Dora]"; (2) it made "no mention of any of the [statutory…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.20.100(c) — 1 case
Parks v. Parks, 214 P.3d 295 (Alaska 2009). “" (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting AS 25.20.100(c), and citing Barreff v. Alguire, 35 P.”
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.