Source: http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-7217.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:29:43+00:00

Document:
Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                     ACIFIC  REPORTER.
Judicial District, Ketchikan, William B. Carey, Judge.
M. Chupka, Chupka Currall LLC, Ketchikan, for Appellee.
Nickcole Moore and Forrest McGillis were married in Ketchikan in 2006.
Forrest had another child, a girl.
interaction."  Evans v. McTaggart                                                                                                                                        , 88 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2004) (quoting                                                                                                                                                                                      Carter v.
Brodrick, 644 P.2d 850, 853 n.2 (Alaska 1982)).
contact with the child in the other's custody.
P.3d 178, 185 (Alaska 2010) (quoting                                                                                                                                                                  Evans, 88 P.3d at 1085).
"[did] not mean that . . . custody . . . needs to be modified."
Forrest was"interferingwithNickcole's rightto telephonecontact with [their daughter]."
and  assume  parental  responsibilities,  including  Forrest's  child  support  obligation.
himself of his support obligation.
Nickcole's motion, and appointed a custody investigator.
that both children appeared to be doing well in their respective homes.
that his phone contact with the son had been "less than adequate."
they were visiting with him.
Alaska, five weeks in Arizona, to accommodate "[the son's] other interests and needs."
recommendation that Nickcole be given sole legal custody of her son.
held in contempt of court."
daughter was "simply not supported by the evidence."
to be an effort by Nickcole to "place one more obstacle between [her son] and [Forrest]."
controlling findings of fact were clearly erroneous."
McLane v. Paul                                          , 189 P.3d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 2008)).
4                     Id. (citing Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478, 482 (Alaska 2012)).
factors, or assigned disproportionate weight to particular factors while ignoring others."
Certain events may amount to changed circumstances as a matter of law.
there was no substantial change in circumstances regarding their daughter. We disagree.
5	              Id.  (quoting  Chesser-Witmer v.Chesser                                                          , 117P.3d 711,                      715 (Alaska2005)).
change in circumstances as a matter of law" (alteration in original) (quoting                                                                                                               Acevedo v.
Liberty, 956 P.2d 455, 457 (Alaska 1998))).
7                Wilhour v. Wilhour, 308 P.3d 884, 887 (Alaska 2013) (citations omitted).
8               Sawicki v. Haxby, 186 P.3d 546, 550 (Alaska 2008) (citing Beaudoin v.
Beaudoin, 24 P.3d 523, 526 (Alaska 2001)).
custody order that the party seeks to modify."
he's in the home that he's busy preparing meals or doing things for the family."
the daughter's welfare, despite the changes in Forrest's work hours and family life.
9          Collier  v.  Harris  (Collier  I),  261  P.3d  397,  403  (Alaska  2011).
10         Collier  II,  377  P.3d  at  20  (citing  Heather   W.,  274  P.3d  at  482).
12         Collier  II,  377  P.3d  at  20  (quoting  Heather   W.,  274  P.3d  at  482-83).
contacting her daughter. But the court admonished the parties to "communicate better,"
may constituteasignificant changeincircumstances justifying                                                                                   modificationofcustody.
than address it through custody modification.
14             Hunter  v.  Conwell,  276  P.3d  413,  421  (Alaska  2012).
15              Vachon  v.  Pugliese,  931  P.2d  371,  379  (Alaska   1996).
16              Collier  I,  261  P.3d  at  406  (quoting  Peterson,  214  P.3d  at  341  n.28).
Jenkins  v.  Handel,   10  P.3d  586,  589  (Alaska  2000))).
refer only to her previous motions.
the court's decision was within its discretion.
Changed Circumstances As A Matter Of Law.
find that the circumstances underlying its original custody order for her son had changed.
Forrest's diminished role in the son's life.
highly cynical effort on the part of [Nickcole]."
18                                  Id. at 6 (citing Acevedo v. Liberty , 956 P.2d 455, 457 (Alaska 1998)).
continues to have a support obligation because of his continuing legal custody of her son.
stepchild purely by virtue of becoming his or her stepparent.
19             Collier  II,  377  P.3d  at   15,  20.
20            Hubbard  v.  Hubbard,  44  P.3d   153,   156  (Alaska  2002).
would leave a child with no one in its home legally obliged to support it."
son's biological father notwithstanding.  We therefore reverse the trial court's decision.
may affect Forrest's support obligation.
doctrine of paternity by estoppel").
grounds by Evans, 88 P.3d at 1085).
obligation terminated once "the stepparent is no longer 'custodial' ").

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.