Opinion ID: 2570321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The legal standard for determining child custody

Text: Ebertz first argues that the superior court treated this case as an action to modify an existing custody order rather than as an action to determine initial custody. In its final findings, the court awarded physical and legal custody of Mitchell and Alicia to [Bahma-Ebertz] based on the amount of time they have spent with their mother, the fact that they are both doing very well in [Bahma-Ebertz's] care. Because the interim custody order, entered soon after Ebertz filed for divorce, granted physical and legal custody to Bahma-Ebertz, Ebertz maintains that the court's final custody order demonstrates that the court required him to show changed circumstances sufficient to justify any change in the custody situation. Bahma-Ebertz responds that the superior court did not require Ebertz to show a significant change in circumstances before determining the children's best interests. She points out that the court specifically stated that it was basing its decision on a best-interests analysis. She argues that the court's discussion regarding the `amount of time' the children had spent with their mother did not require Ebertz to show that circumstances had changed since the interim order, but simply recognized that the children had spent most of their lives with Bahma-Ebertz. She asserts that although the superior court may consider interim custody in its final determination, [9] it did not do so in this case. The trial court must base an initial custody determination on the children's best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). [10] In contrast, modifying an existing custody order entails a two-step process: the parent seeking modification must establish a significant change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests; only if the parent makes this showing does the court proceed to determine whether modification is in the best interests of the child. [11] Here, the court found that Bahma-Ebertz was the primary caregiver of all three children throughout most of their lives, while Ebertz spent considerable time away from the children because of his work schedule. The court found that Ebertz lived in Bethel, away from his children, for most of 1997-1999. After his family joined him in Bethel, Ebertz transferred back to Wasilla in August 2001, while Bahma-Ebertz and the children remained in Bethel. The court noted that [i]n August 2003, it will be another two years he has not lived with the two younger children. Though recognizing that there has not been an excessive amount of stability for these children, what with their move and their father coming in and out of their lives, the court found that these children appear to be[ ] doing very well. The court then granted custody to Bahma-Ebertz based on the amount of time they have spent with their mother. When viewed as a whole, these findings fail to substantiate Ebertz's claim that the court focused exclusively on the children's situation after the interim custody order was entered. To the contrary, the court's discussion of Ebertz's time away from the family establishes that the court considered the children's situation over the span of their lives. We agree with Bahma-Ebertz that the superior court did not base its order on Ebertz's failure to show that circumstances had changed since the interim custody order issued.