Opinion ID: 2570321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of the superior court's findings and sufficiency of evidence to support them

Text: Ebertz argues that the court's custody findings are deficient because they address only one of the nine statutory factors used to determine the children's best interests: [15] the length of time the child[ren] ha[ve] lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity, which is the fifth statutory best-interests factor. [16] He argues that even the most cursory review of the record ... demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion ... in its application of [the] evidence to `the best interests of the minor children.' Bahma-Ebertz responds that the court was not required to discuss every statutory factor and that its written custody order establishes that the court did consider the factors that were disputed. Bahma-Ebertz's argument has merit. Our cases hold that in determining the best interests of a child, the court need not discuss each statutory factor in detail; the court's findings will be sufficient if they give us a clear indication of the factors which [the court] considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved. [17] Although the court's findings here are sparse and certainly could have been set out in greater detail, a review of those findings against the backdrop of the record gives us a clear indication of the factors which the superior court considered important. [18] The court discussed at length the fact that Ebertz lived away from the children for extended time periods. Despite this instability in the children's lives, the court noted that several witnesses testified that Alicia and Mitchell were doing well in Bahma-Ebertz's care. The court also discussed Zackery's special educational and emotional needs and the fact that Bahma-Ebertz arranged for Zackery to have counseling to help with these special needs. Thus, it appears the court addressed the social and emotional needs of the children and the parent's desire and ability to meet those needs  the first two statutory best-interests factors. [19] The court also discussed testimony that Ebertz once hit Zackery and that Bahma-Ebertz once left the children in the car on a very cold day. This discussion establishes that the court considered the issue of abuse or neglect by the parties  the seventh statutory custody factor. [20] Ebertz additionally faults the superior court for failing to consider Bahma-Ebertz's tendency to exaggerate as a relevant point under the ninth subsection of the statutory best-interests provisions  a catchall provision that allows a court to consider any non-specified factor it deems pertinent to custody. [21] But the court did consider this factor, expressly noting that Bahma-Ebertz had acknowledged exaggerating certain facts. In short, the record reveals that the court considered and discussed evidence relating to most of the statutory custody factors that were actively disputed, not just a single factor, as Ebertz alleges. The court's ultimate decision to give determinative weight to one of these factors and the consequent emphasis it placed on this factor do not, standing alone, establish that it ignored the remaining factors or gave them inadequate weight. Accordingly, we find no merit to Ebertz's claim that the superior court's findings are deficient as a matter of law because they address only a single custody factor. A separate issue is whether the record supports the superior court's findings. Ebertz insists that it does not, arguing that the evidence at trial conclusively established that the children's best interests would not be served by awarding custody to Bahma-Ebertz. But our review of the record indicates that the superior court's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The court heard testimony from several witnesses regarding each parent's ability to meet the needs of the children. The evidence showed that Bahma-Ebertz was the children's primary caretaker during the marriage and that Ebertz's job forced him to spend considerable time away from the children. Even the custody investigator's report, which recommended awarding custody to Ebertz, acknowledged that [g]reater time lost with the father has been shown to correlate to high levels of problems in the area of aggression. In its final custody order, the superior court discussed its concern about Ebertz's extended absences from the children. The court also found that Zackery had anger problems in school and at home. Bahma-Ebertz had sent Zackery to counseling to help him deal with his emotional problems, and his teacher testified that Zackery started showing progress. Zackery's teacher also testified that Bahma-Ebertz checked with her on Zackery's progress approximately every two weeks. Alicia's teachers also testified that Alicia is on track academically. Bahma-Ebertz stayed with Alicia in Anchorage during Alicia's kidney surgery and participated regularly in the children's social activities, like Girl Scouts and baseball. All of this evidence bears on and substantially supports the court's findings regarding the first two statutory factors, the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child[ren] [22] and the capability and desire of each parent to meet these needs. [23] The court heard conflicting evidence concerning the next contested [24] factor, the children's stability in Bahma-Ebertz's home and the desirability of continuing their custody there. [25] Ebertz argues that the evidence clearly showed that Bahma-Ebertz's household was unsafe and unstable for the children. Bahma-Ebertz's brother testified that he was concerned about the living conditions at Bahma-Ebertz's house in Bethel after making a brief visit. He testified that there was very little food in the house and that the front door to the home continually froze shut. On the other hand, a private custody investigator found that Bahma-Ebertz's home was appropriately kept for children and that the children were clean and well fed. A friend of Bahma-Ebertz's testified that she visited Bahma-Ebertz's home approximately twenty times and found that Bahma-Ebertz kept it in good condition. Moreover, the court heard undisputed evidence that Ebertz had lived away from the children for most of their lives. Despite the presence of conflicting testimony, then, substantial evidence supported the court's decision to weigh the stability factor as distinctly favoring Bahma-Ebertz. We have repeatedly emphasized that it is the function of the trial court, not of this court, to judge witnesses' credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence. [26] We decline to second guess the superior court's decision to resolve this conflict in Bahma-Ebertz's favor. Ebertz further argues that the court completely ignored the almost constant disparagement expressed by Ms. Bahma-Ebertz against Mr. Ebertz; he also maintains that Bahma-Ebertz does not allow him reasonable visitation. But the evidence revealed that both parents appear to have made negative remarks about each other. And there was testimony indicating that Bahma-Ebertz went out of her way to keep the children from hearing and making negative comments about Ebertz. For example, Bahma-Ebertz's mother testified that when the children made negative remarks about Ebertz, Bahma-Ebertz would reprimand them and tell them he is your dad. He loves you and you do not talk ... like that about your dad. This evidence lends substantial support to the superior court's implicit decision that the sixth statutory custody factor  the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving frequent relationship between the child and the other parent [27]  did not tilt strongly in either parent's favor. The court similarly declined to rule that either party was favored under the seventh statutory factor  domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in the proposed custodial household. [28] The court found that Ebertz had hit Zackery in the face on one occasion but found this to be an isolated incident. It also found that Bahma-Ebertz had once left the children in the car on a very cold day while she visited a friend. But this too was an isolated incident, and Bahma-Ebertz had testified that she left the children for only a brief period time. Ebertz contends that Bahma-Ebertz also neglected the children by allowing the windows and doors of her house to freeze shut. But the evidence suggests that this was caused by Bahma-Ebertz's misunderstanding of how her home's ventilation system worked. Substantial evidence supported the court's refusal to give this factor significant weight as to either party. As to the eighth specified statutory factor  substance abuse by either parent or other members of the household directly affect[ing] the emotional or physical well-being of the child [29]  Ebertz argues that Bahma-Ebertz's use of prescription narcotics and her friendship with a known alcoholic had a detrimental effect on the children. But as Bahma-Ebertz accurately points out, no evidence was presented that the children had access to any of her medication or that her use of medication had any effect on them. And despite Ebertz's assertion to the contrary, there was no evidence that Bahma-Ebertz had a friendship with a known alcoholic. The accusation related to a friend of Bahma-Ebertz's named Carl Bailey. Bailey testified that he used to brew his own beer as a hobby. But a tenant in Bailey's rooming house testified that she had never seen him consume excessive amounts of alcohol. Ebertz further argues that the court should also have considered Bahma-Ebertz's tendency to exaggerate the truth. He asserts that Bahma-Ebertz is a liar of such proportion as to easily lead to the conclusion that she is simply divorced from reality and can never be trusted. In Ebertz's view, Bahma-Ebertz's alleged dishonesty deserves weight under the catchall provision of the best-interests statute, which allows reliance on any other factors that the court considers pertinent. [30] Yet the superior court's custody decision demonstrates that the court did consider Bahma-Ebertz's admitted tendency to exaggerate, but evidently chose to give it minor weight. We see no basis for overturning the court's decision on this point, since, as we have already mentioned, it is not our role as an appellate tribunal to second guess the trial court's decision on issues of credibility. In summary, the record shows that the superior court weighed the extensive testimony of many witnesses and ultimately found, based on all the evidence, that the children's best interests would be served by awarding Bahma-Ebertz sole custody of Alicia and Mitchell and shared custody of Zackery. Our review of the record convinces us that the superior court's custody findings are well supported by substantial evidence. We thus hold that the findings are not clearly erroneous and that the custody decision does not amount to an abuse of discretion