right to an evidentiary hearing in Alaska

2022In the motion John 5 Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 742 (Alaska 2000) (first alteration in original)). 6 Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 481-82 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 7 An exception is if the court finds that a crime involving domestic violence has occurred since the last custody or visitation award, it is automatically considered a change of circumstances.

2016“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.”23 “A motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting 22 C.R.B., 959 P.2d at 381 n.12. 23 Hunter v. Conwell (Hunter II), 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Hunter I, 219 P.3d 191, 196 (Alaska 2009)); see also Heather W

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2019See Abby D. v. Sue Y., 378 P.3d 388, 394 (Alaska 2016) (“A motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child[]’s welfare.’ ” (alterations in original) (quoting Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 565 (Alaska 2015))). -4- 1721

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2019See Abby D. v. Sue Y., 378 P.3d 388, 394 (Alaska 2016) (“A motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child[]’s welfare.’ ” (alterations in original) (quoting Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 565 (Alaska 2015))). -4- 1721

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2021Jay argues that four separate issues each constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification hearing: (1) Alisa’s interference with the children’s therapy; (2) new evidence about Alisa’s parenting that was unavailable at the 14 Id. (quoting Bagby v. Bagby, 250 P.3d 1127, 1128 (Alaska 2011)). 15 Id. at 394 (quoting Hunter v. Conwell, 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012)). 16 Id. (quoting Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 ). 17 Id. (quoting Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 481-82 (Alaska 2012)). 18 Id. (quoting Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 ). -8- 1816 time of the modification hearing;

2021Jay argues that four separate issues each constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification hearing: (1) Alisa’s interference with the children’s therapy; (2) new evidence about Alisa’s parenting that was unavailable at the 14 Id. (quoting Bagby v. Bagby, 250 P.3d 1127, 1128 (Alaska 2011)). 15 Id. at 394 (quoting Hunter v. Conwell, 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012)). 16 Id. (quoting Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 ). 17 Id. (quoting Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 481-82 (Alaska 2012)). 18 Id. (quoting Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 ). -8- 1816 time of the modification hearing;

2016“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.”23 “A motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting 22 C.R.B., 959 P.2d at 381 n.12. 23 Hunter v. Conwell (Hunter II), 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Hunter I, 219 P.3d 191, 196 (Alaska 2009)); see also Heather W

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2022DISCUSSION Alaska Statute 25.20.110(a) provides that “[a]n award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child.” A parent’s “motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a 1 Jean filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal. 2 Hope P. v. Flynn G., 355 P.3d 559, 564 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Collier v. Harris (Collier I), 261 P.3d 397, 405

2022In the motion John 5 Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 742 (Alaska 2000) (first alteration in original)). 6 Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 481-82 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 7 An exception is if the court finds that a crime involving domestic violence has occurred since the last custody or visitation award, it is automatically considered a change of circumstances.

2022In the motion John 5 Hope P., 355 P.3d at 565 (quoting Schuyler v. Briner, 13 P.3d 738, 742 (Alaska 2000) (first alteration in original)). 6 Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 481-82 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Handel, 10 P.3d 586, 589 (Alaska 2000)). 7 An exception is if the court finds that a crime involving domestic violence has occurred since the last custody or visitation award, it is automatically considered a change of circumstances.

2016“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.”23 “A motion to modify custody triggers a right to an evidentiary hearing only if the moving party ‘make[s] a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting 22 C.R.B., 959 P.2d at 381 n.12. 23 Hunter v. Conwell (Hunter II), 276 P.3d 413, 419 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Hunter I, 219 P.3d 191, 196 (Alaska 2009)); see also Heather W

2009See DeNardo v. Maassen, 200 P.3d 305, 315 (Alaska 2009) ("A party may waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on disputed material questions of fact by failing to request one before the court rules on the matter."). 48 .