interests analysis in Alaska

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2023When awarding custody the trial court must consider nine factors relating to the child’s best interests. 2 “Once a court has identified the best interests factors relevant to its decision, we review the individual findings for clear error and how the factors were balanced for abuse of discretion.” 3 A finding of fact “is clearly erroneous when this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court has made a mistake.”4 A trial court abused its discretion if it “considered improper factors in making its custody determination, failed to consider statutorily mandated factors,

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW “We set aside a trial court’s determination of custody ‘only if the entire record demonstrates that the controlling findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” 2 “Once a court has identified the best interests factors relevant to its decision, we review the individual findings for clear error and 2 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). -6- 1951 how the factors were balanced for abuse of discretion.”3 A finding of fact “i

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2023The Moeller-Prokosch standard provides that in a child custody case in which one parent plans to move out of state, the court’s best interests analysis “requires symmetrical consideration of the consequences to [the child] both if [the parent] leaves with [the child] and if [the parent] leaves without [the child].” Id. at 535-36 . -7- 1948 in the primary custody of [Stephanie],” she was “the best person to promote” the relationship between the parties’ daughter and her older siblings.

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2024S.C. is not participating in the appeal. 2 See Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80, 88 (Alaska 2018) (explaining that when parent moves out of state, symmetric analysis requires consideration of child’s best interests both if child stays and if child goes with moving parent). 3 See AS 25.24.150(c)(2). 4 See AS 25.24.150(c)(5). 5 See AS 25.24.150(c)(6). -6- 7707 STANDARD OF REVIEW “A trial court has broad discretion in deciding child custody issues.” 6 We will “set aside a trial court’s determination of custody ‘only if the entire record demonstrates that the controlling findings of fact are clear

2021“A parent’s anticipated relocation constitutes a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify considering a physical custody modification.”6 When considering a modification, the superior court must take into account the best interests factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c).7 The superior court in this case — in its analysis of the 2 Saffir v. Wheeler, 436 P.3d 1009, 1013 (Alaska 2019). 3 Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80, 85 (Alaska 2018) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)). 4 Id. (quoting Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478, 479-80 (Alaska 1994)). 5 Duffus v. Duffus, 932 P

2026If the superior court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it must analyze whether modifying legal custody is in the child’s best interests. 17 The superior court’s best interests analysis should be “based on ‘the statutory factors enumerated in AS 25.24.150(c).’ ” 18 16 Rainer, 510 P.3d at 482 . 17 Collier, 377 P.3d at 20 (citing Hunter, 219 P.3d at 196 ). 18 Id. (quoting Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 482-83 (Alaska 2012)).

2018“Modification of a custody determination is a two-step process: first, ‘the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests’; only then is a best interests analysis performed.”8 A change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order “must be significant or substantial, and must be demonstrated relative to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order that the party seeks to modify.”9 Because of the “deep reluctance [of courts] to shuttle children back and forth” a chang

2025We have consistently held that “[m]odification of a custody determination is a two-step process: [F]irst, the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests; only then is a best interests analysis performed.” Abby D. v. Sue Y., 378 P.3d 388, 394 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Hunter v. Conwell, 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31 Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649, 661 (Alaska 2007) (citing Alaska R.

2018“Modification of a custody determination is a two-step process: first, ‘the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests’; only then is a best interests analysis performed.”8 A change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order “must be significant or substantial, and must be demonstrated relative to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order that the party seeks to modify.”9 Because of the “deep reluctance [of courts] to shuttle children back and forth” a chang

2021She argues that “the convenience of . . . witnesses” and “the ends of justice” would have been promoted by the change. 20 Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska 2005)). 21 Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V., 274 P.3d 1185, 1192 (Alaska 2012) (“The superior court has wide discretion to ascertain a child’s best interests and to weigh the best interests factors.”); Silvan v. Alcina, 105 P.3d 117, 122 (Alaska 2005) (“When the superior court is faced with conflicting evidence, we do not re-weigh it.”). 22 Christina J., 254 P.3d at 1103 . 23 See Ma

2021DISCUSSION David challenges three aspects of the superior court’s decision: (1) its failure to give credence to his allegations of domestic violence and to weigh those allegations more heavily in the best interests analysis; (2) its refusal to recognize what 12 Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 15 , 20 (Alaska 2016). 13 Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432, 436 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 15 Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2026Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch III, we again examined the superior court’s revised findings and order on custody.25 We further clarified that the continuity and stability best interest factor “commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent’s 19 Id. at 317 . 20 Id. at 317 n.8. 21 Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 153 . 22 Id. at 156 . 23 Id. 24 Rego, 259 P.3d at 454 (citing Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d at 156 ). 25 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 532 (Alaska 2004). -9- 2150 respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and t

2021DISCUSSION David challenges three aspects of the superior court’s decision: (1) its failure to give credence to his allegations of domestic violence and to weigh those allegations more heavily in the best interests analysis; (2) its refusal to recognize what 12 Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 15 , 20 (Alaska 2016). 13 Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432, 436 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 15 Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska

2018“Modification of a custody determination is a two-step process: first, ‘the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests’; only then is a best interests analysis performed.”8 A change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order “must be significant or substantial, and must be demonstrated relative to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order that the party seeks to modify.”9 Because of the “deep reluctance [of courts] to shuttle children back and forth” a chang

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW “We set aside a trial court’s determination of custody ‘only if the entire record demonstrates that the controlling findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” 2 “Once a court has identified the best interests factors relevant to its decision, we review the individual findings for clear error and 2 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). -6- 1951 how the factors were balanced for abuse of discretion.”3 A finding of fact “i

2023When awarding custody the trial court must consider nine factors relating to the child’s best interests. 2 “Once a court has identified the best interests factors relevant to its decision, we review the individual findings for clear error and how the factors were balanced for abuse of discretion.” 3 A finding of fact “is clearly erroneous when this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court has made a mistake.”4 A trial court abused its discretion if it “considered improper factors in making its custody determination, failed to consider statutorily mandated factors,

2022She also argues that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to the legislature’s policy decision to 34 Ott, 463 P.3d at 185 (quoting Sheffield v. Sheffield, 265 P.3d 332, 335 (Alaska 2011)). 35 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 36 Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392, 400 (Alaska 2013). 37 Karrie B. ex rel.

2021DISCUSSION David challenges three aspects of the superior court’s decision: (1) its failure to give credence to his allegations of domestic violence and to weigh those allegations more heavily in the best interests analysis; (2) its refusal to recognize what 12 Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 15 , 20 (Alaska 2016). 13 Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432, 436 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 15 Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska

2021But it is the superior court’s task to judge witness credibility and the weight to give their testimony,21 and “we will not re-weigh evidence when the record provides clear support for the [superior] court’s ruling.”22 The court’s domestic violence findings are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; and given the age of the 20 Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202, 209 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995, 1005 (Alaska 2010)). 21 Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska 2005). 22 Tessa M. v. State, Dep’t of Health &Soc.

2020Because the court already found that Jonathan rebutted the presumption against custody,57 it must conduct a new best interests analysis that (1) properly contemplates Jonathan’s sexual abuse of Angelica, independent of the fact that he has rebutted the domestic violence presumption; 56 See, e.g., Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202, 207-10 (Alaska 2014) (discussing rebutting the presumption, and then evaluating domestic violence in the best interests analysis by saying the court’s findings regarding the presumption rebuttal were adequate to cover the best interests analysis); Weinberger v.

2020I 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].” 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.”).

2019Id. at 317 . 7 Eniero v. Brekke, 192 P.3d 147, 150 (Alaska 2008). -3- 1713 difficult.”8 The court cannot “hold [a legitimate move] against the party who proposes to move.”9 The court’s second step is a best interests analysis, which in this context necessarily involves “ ‘symmetric consideration’ of the child’s experience living with each parent, assuming the proposed relocation will take place.”10 If the parent has secondary and illegitimate reasons for moving, the court does not ignore these but rather takes them into account in the best interests analysis.11 For example, if a parent has a s

2019“A move is legitimate if it is not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult.” Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 453 (Alaska 2011). 5 Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005) (citing Moeller-Prokosch I, 27 P.3d at 316 ) (footnote omitted). -7- 7337 parent] leaves without [the child].”6 This analytical framework “ensures that courts weigh costs and benefits to a child when one parent asks for a custody order reflecting their plan to move.”7 Whether the superior court properly applied the Moeller-Prokosch legal standard is subject to de novo review.8 2.

2015For example, as 2 Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005) (citing Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 3 J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409, 411 (Alaska 1996) (citing Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896, 898 (Alaska 1991)); see also Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002). 4 Siekawitch v. Siekawitch, 956 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 134 (Alaska 1997)). 5 Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9, 11 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Siekawitch, 956 P.2d at 449 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 29

2011Eniero v. Brekke, 192 P.3d 147, 150 (Alaska 2008) ("[Wle 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 be *454 tween the child and the other parent."); Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9 , 13 n. 12 (Alaska 2002) ("[The impact of any potential move may be taken into consideration by the court in assessing the best interests of the child."); and Moeller-Prokosch I, 27 P.3d at 316 ("The best interests analysis necessarily will include assessing the impact of the parent's move on the

2008Moeller-Prokosch I, 27 P.3d at 316-17 ("[The best interests analysis necessarily will include assessing the impact of the parent's move on the child."); Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9 , 13 n. 12 (Alaska 2002) ("[Tlhe impact of any potential move may be taken into consideration by the court in assessing the best interests of the child."). 9 .

2025We reasoned that “[p]erforming the best interests analysis based on [a parent’s] assumed move requires symmetric consideration of the consequences to” the children if they reside with the non-moving 11 Moeller I, 27 P.3d at 315 . 12 Id. at 317 . 13 Id. at 316 . 14 Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Alaska 1989)). 15 Ott v. Runa, 463 P.3d 180, 185-86 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 453 (Alaska 2011)); see also AS 25.24.150(c). 16 Moeller II, 53 P.3d 152, 155 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Moeller I, 27 P.3d at 316 ). -8- 7781 parent whil

2021“A parent’s anticipated relocation constitutes a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify considering a physical custody modification.”6 When considering a modification, the superior court must take into account the best interests factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c).7 The superior court in this case — in its analysis of the 2 Saffir v. Wheeler, 436 P.3d 1009, 1013 (Alaska 2019). 3 Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80, 85 (Alaska 2018) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011)). 4 Id. (quoting Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478, 479-80 (Alaska 1994)). 5 Duffus v. Duffus, 932 P

2025We reasoned that “[p]erforming the best interests analysis based on [a parent’s] assumed move requires symmetric consideration of the consequences to” the children if they reside with the non-moving 11 Moeller I, 27 P.3d at 315 . 12 Id. at 317 . 13 Id. at 316 . 14 Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Alaska 1989)). 15 Ott v. Runa, 463 P.3d 180, 185-86 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 453 (Alaska 2011)); see also AS 25.24.150(c). 16 Moeller II, 53 P.3d 152, 155 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Moeller I, 27 P.3d at 316 ). -8- 7781 parent whil

2019Id. at 317 . 7 Eniero v. Brekke, 192 P.3d 147, 150 (Alaska 2008). -3- 1713 difficult.”8 The court cannot “hold [a legitimate move] against the party who proposes to move.”9 The court’s second step is a best interests analysis, which in this context necessarily involves “ ‘symmetric consideration’ of the child’s experience living with each parent, assuming the proposed relocation will take place.”10 If the parent has secondary and illegitimate reasons for moving, the court does not ignore these but rather takes them into account in the best interests analysis.11 For example, if a parent has a s

2025We have consistently held that “[m]odification of a custody determination is a two-step process: [F]irst, the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests; only then is a best interests analysis performed.” Abby D. v. Sue Y., 378 P.3d 388, 394 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Hunter v. Conwell, 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31 Katz v. Murphy, 165 P.3d 649, 661 (Alaska 2007) (citing Alaska R.

2018“Modification of a custody determination is a two-step process: first, ‘the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests’; only then is a best interests analysis performed.”8 A change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order “must be significant or substantial, and must be demonstrated relative to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order that the party seeks to modify.”9 Because of the “deep reluctance [of courts] to shuttle children back and forth” a chang

2024As for the domestic violence factor that 18 See AS 25.24.150(c)(7) (requiring court to consider “any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents”). 19 Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332, 337 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98, 102-03 (Alaska 2007)). 20 Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205, 207 (Alaska 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 138-40 , 137 n.2 (Alaska 1997)). -10- 2016 Helen argues was insufficiently analyzed, the master referred t

2023It addressed each best interests factor and its relevance to the custody decision and stated that it would “consider them each in turn.” The court concluded there was no evidence of 16 Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995, 1005 (Alaska 2010). 17 Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205, 207 (Alaska 1999). 18 Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80, 85-86 (Alaska 2018) (explaining two-step approach for determining child’s best interests in custody dispute where one parent plans to relocate out of state with child). 19 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 535-36 (Alaska 2004). -7- 1967 abuse or neglect20 or substa

2023It addressed each best interests factor and its relevance to the custody decision and stated that it would “consider them each in turn.” The court concluded there was no evidence of 16 Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995, 1005 (Alaska 2010). 17 Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205, 207 (Alaska 1999). 18 Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80, 85-86 (Alaska 2018) (explaining two-step approach for determining child’s best interests in custody dispute where one parent plans to relocate out of state with child). 19 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 535-36 (Alaska 2004). -7- 1967 abuse or neglect20 or substa

2021But it is the superior court’s task to judge witness credibility and the weight to give their testimony,21 and “we will not re-weigh evidence when the record provides clear support for the [superior] court’s ruling.”22 The court’s domestic violence findings are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; and given the age of the 20 Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202, 209 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995, 1005 (Alaska 2010)). 21 Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska 2005). 22 Tessa M. v. State, Dep’t of Health &Soc.

2022She also argues that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to the legislature’s policy decision to 34 Ott, 463 P.3d at 185 (quoting Sheffield v. Sheffield, 265 P.3d 332, 335 (Alaska 2011)). 35 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 36 Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392, 400 (Alaska 2013). 37 Karrie B. ex rel.

2015For example, as 2 Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005) (citing Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 3 J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409, 411 (Alaska 1996) (citing Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896, 898 (Alaska 1991)); see also Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002). 4 Siekawitch v. Siekawitch, 956 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 134 (Alaska 1997)). 5 Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9, 11 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Siekawitch, 956 P.2d at 449 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 29

2022She also argues that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to the legislature’s policy decision to 34 Ott, 463 P.3d at 185 (quoting Sheffield v. Sheffield, 265 P.3d 332, 335 (Alaska 2011)). 35 Joy B. v. Everett B., 451 P.3d 365, 368 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). 36 Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392, 400 (Alaska 2013). 37 Karrie B. ex rel.

2015As we noted in Ronny M. v. Nanette H., The superior court need not make express findings on all statutory factors; instead, its findings must either give us a clear indication of the factors which the superior court considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved.[6] 3 Frackman v. Enzor, 327 P.3d 878, 882 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Id. (quoting J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409, 411 (Alaska 1996)). 5 Id. (quoting Siekawitch v. Siekawitch

2022Reep v. Catherine J., 181 P.3d 177, 185 (Alaska 2008) (“[A] court may consider favorable present placements as a factor in a best interests analysis.”); see also Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2012Reep v. Catherine J., 181 P.3d 177, 185 (Alaska 2008); see also M.W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2021But the court described the incident as a primarily “verbal argument regarding finances” that caused the boyfriend no physical pain and did not meet the definition of “an assault or any other crime that’s a crime of domestic violence.” The court further stated that even if the incident did constitute domestic violence, it would not find that the “single episode constitutes a substantial change of circumstances in the child’s life.” The court went on, however, to consider the best interests factors as an alternative basis for its ruling.5 It noted that the child was attending speech therapy but

2018See Peterson v. Ek , 93 P.3d 458 , 467 (Alaska 2004) ("We have consistently held that failure to file a cross-appeal waives the right to contest rulings below."). 10 See AS 25.24.150(c)(9) (directing the court to consider in the best interests analysis "other factors that the court considers pertinent"). 11 See AS 25.24.150(c)(8) (directing the court to consider "evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child" (emphasis added) ). 12 The court's order stated that it "is not now requiring visits

2023Although this is an extremely close question, there is enough evidence in the record to support the court’s ruling. “[A] court may award shared custody to both parents if shared custody is determined by the court to be in the best interests of the child.”17 “The preference of 15 See Burns v. Burns, 466 P.3d 352, 361 (Alaska 2020) (holding that superior court did not err by assigning “limited or no weight” to parent’s psychological evaluation in custody dispute when court was presented with other evidence upon which it based its decision). 16 Brett M. v. Amanda M., 445 P.3d 1005 , 1009 n.9 (Ala

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW “We set aside a trial court’s determination of custody ‘only if the entire record demonstrates that the controlling findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the trial court abused its discretion.’ ” 2 “Once a court has identified the best interests factors relevant to its decision, we review the individual findings for clear error and 2 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller-Prokosch III), 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004) (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002)). -6- 1951 how the factors were balanced for abuse of discretion.”3 A finding of fact “i

2026If the superior court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it must analyze whether modifying legal custody is in the child’s best interests. 17 The superior court’s best interests analysis should be “based on ‘the statutory factors enumerated in AS 25.24.150(c).’ ” 18 16 Rainer, 510 P.3d at 482 . 17 Collier, 377 P.3d at 20 (citing Hunter, 219 P.3d at 196 ). 18 Id. (quoting Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 482-83 (Alaska 2012)).

2026If the superior court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it must analyze whether modifying legal custody is in the child’s best interests. 17 The superior court’s best interests analysis should be “based on ‘the statutory factors enumerated in AS 25.24.150(c).’ ” 18 16 Rainer, 510 P.3d at 482 . 17 Collier, 377 P.3d at 20 (citing Hunter, 219 P.3d at 196 ). 18 Id. (quoting Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 482-83 (Alaska 2012)).

2024As for the domestic violence factor that 18 See AS 25.24.150(c)(7) (requiring court to consider “any evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household or a history of violence between the parents”). 19 Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332, 337 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98, 102-03 (Alaska 2007)). 20 Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205, 207 (Alaska 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 138-40 , 137 n.2 (Alaska 1997)). -10- 2016 Helen argues was insufficiently analyzed, the master referred t

2015For example, as 2 Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005) (citing Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 3 J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409, 411 (Alaska 1996) (citing Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896, 898 (Alaska 1991)); see also Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002). 4 Siekawitch v. Siekawitch, 956 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 134 (Alaska 1997)). 5 Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9, 11 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Siekawitch, 956 P.2d at 449 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 29

2021She argues that “the convenience of . . . witnesses” and “the ends of justice” would have been promoted by the change. 20 Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447, 452 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643, 646 (Alaska 2005)). 21 Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V., 274 P.3d 1185, 1192 (Alaska 2012) (“The superior court has wide discretion to ascertain a child’s best interests and to weigh the best interests factors.”); Silvan v. Alcina, 105 P.3d 117, 122 (Alaska 2005) (“When the superior court is faced with conflicting evidence, we do not re-weigh it.”). 22 Christina J., 254 P.3d at 1103 . 23 See Ma

2018It also includes stability of place."). 35 Silvan v. Alcina , 105 P.3d 117 , 121 (Alaska 2005). 36 See Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V. , 274 P.3d 1185 , 1189 (Alaska 2012) (citing Evans v. Evans , 869 P.2d 478 , 479-80 ). 37 Cf. Moeller-Prokosch III , 99 P.3d at 535 -36 . 38 See AS 25.24.150(c)(8). 39 S.N.E. v. R.L.B. , 699 P.2d 875 , 878 (Alaska 1985) ; see AS 25.24.150(c)(8) (providing that the best interests analysis should consider "evidence that substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child"); AS 25.24.150(