Opinion ID: 2638013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Applied the Correct Legal Standard.

Text: Eric argues that the superior court improperly treated Katherine's motion as if it were an initial custody proceeding instead of a modification proceeding. He contends that the trial court must apply a three-step analysis when determining whether to modify custody. Eric also argues that Katherine had a heavy burden to prove that modification was warranted, which she did not satisfy. We disagree on all points.
Eric contends that there is a three-step analysis for modification of custody: (1) a material, substantial change must exist relative to the prior custody arrangement; (2) the change of circumstances must require modification; and (3) the modification must be in the best interests of the child. However, as we have repeatedly held, [7] Alaska law establishes only two conditions that must be satisfied before a motion to modify custody will be granted: An 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. [8] (The second of those conditions incorporates the last two steps suggested by Eric.) We turn to these two conditions now.
The non-custodial parent must first establish that a change in circumstances has occurred. [9] The required change in circumstance 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. [10] The moving parent bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of a substantial change of circumstance as a threshold matter. [11] We have held that a custodial parent's decision to move out-of-state [with the children] amounts to a [substantial] change in circumstances as a matter of law. [12] Thus, the moving party is entitled to a hearing on a motion to modify custody as a matter of law based on a showing that the custodial parent has moved or intends to move. In this case, where the parties' prior custody agreement makes no mention of the possibility that Eric might relocate outside of Alaska, Katherine met her threshold burden of showing a material change in circumstancesEric not only indicated his desire to relocate, he did relocate out of state with the children.
Once the moving party makes the threshold showing of a material change in circumstances in a case where there was no prior judicial determination of the children's best interests, then the moving party is entitled to a hearing to consider whether, in light of such changed circumstances, it is in the child's best interest to alter the existing custodial arrangement. [13] In cases where one parent chooses to relocate outside Alaska, particularly where the parties' prior custody agreement makes no mention of this possibility, the court must determine the custody arrangement that is in the best interests of the child under the criteria stated in AS 25.24.150(c), [14] including assessing whether there are legitimate reasons for the move. [15] The court is to assess the best interests in light of all of the relevant factors, including the impact of the move on the child.... [T]he custody determination must be made in light of each parent's situation, including relocation. [16] Eric cites numerous cases for the proposition that changed circumstances must be substantial relative to the circumstances at the time custody was previously determined. This is correct. [17] Eric then argues that his move out of state is not, of itself, sufficient to warrant modifying custody. But this argument ignores the fact that once changed circumstances are shown (such as his relocation with the boys), the superior court is then obligated to conduct a best interests analysis, which includes consideration of the reasons for relocation. [18] The query on appeal then becomes whether the trial court's determination as to the best interests of the children, under all of the relevant statutory factors, is an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous, not whether the move in and of itself warrants modification. Eric also appears to argue that the trial court's finding that he had been doing a good job parenting the boys means that there were no changed circumstances warranting modification of custody and that the trial court erred by ordering the change in custody based on his move to Washington. But because a custodial parent's decision to relocate constitutes changed circumstances as a matter of law, the length of time the children have been with the custodial parent is merely one of the factors the court considers in making its best interests determination. [19] The trial court in this case properly applied the legal standard for a custody modification where one parent chooses to relocate outside Alaska. After Katherine met her threshold burden of showing changed circumstances based on Eric's relocation out of state with the boys, the court held a hearing on Katherine's motion to modify custody. The trial court made findings under each of the factors of AS 25.24.150(c), in light of Eric's move to Washington and its impact on the boys. The court heard extensive evidence with regard to Eric's ability to parent, his problems with substance abuse, his failure to allow Katherine the liberal visitation she thought she would get under their initial agreement, as well as evidence of Katherine's ability to provide for the children, and the environment in which they had grown up. The court concluded that factors (1) physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs, (5) stability and continuity of the children's environment, (6) ability to allow the maintenance of an open and loving relationship between the children and the other parent, and (8) substance abuse, favored Katherine; that factor (7) domestic violence, was not applicable; and that the parties were equal as to factors (2) parents' ability to meet children's needs, (3) children's preferences, and (4) love and affection between parent and children. The court also considered the impact of the move on the children, especially with regard to the factor of desirability of continuity, as well as the legitimacy of the reasons for the move, when it concluded that the best interests of the children required awarding custody to Katherine.
Eric contends that there are different requirements for an initial custody determination and for a modification of custody, and argues that because the court treated this as an initial custody determination, reversal is warranted in this case. This argument is without merit. In McQuade v. McQuade [20] we held that the legal standard in custody cases where one parent chooses to relocate is the same whether the superior court has an initial custody determination or motion to modify custody before it. We reiterated this principle recently in Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch. [21]