Opinion ID: 2638013
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stable environment

Text: Eric contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the children's stable environment was their community in Ketchikan, not the home Eric provided. We disagree. The trial court's consideration of the stability of the children's environment in a custody modification case can encompass a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, the relationship with the custodial parent, the home provided by the custodial parent, the children's school, the community of friends and family, the cultural community, and the children's relationship with the non-custodial parent. It also includes stability of place. [28] The trial court's difficult task is to examine all of these factors and determine, in each case, which predominate. Here, Judge Thompson found that maintaining the children's relationships with their school, community of friends and family, the cultural community, and their mother outweighed maintaining the relationship with their father. This decision was not an abuse of discretion. As we stated in House v. House , [t]he purpose of maintaining stability in custody arrangements is ... defeated by the custodial parent's decision to leave Alaska. [29]
Eric argues that there was no evidence of a negative impact on the boys from the move. But the court was required to consider all factors that directly affect the well-being of the children, [30] and the absence of negative impact from the move does not automatically mean that custody should remain unchanged. The same is true for the length of custody in the context of the stable environment factor. Both are factors the court is to consider in its bests interests analysisand that is what was done here. Moreover, Eric's argument ignores several impacts of the move on the boys: the restrictions on their ability to see their mother and to have access to their native heritage and the community in which everyone agreed they had developed so well. In this case, the court found that Eric's relocation was a substantial change in circumstances, and the change was magnified, because the parties did not have the money to fly back and forth between Alaska and Washington. The visitation arrangement would thus be severely impacted by Eric's move. The court also found that the evidence showed that the stable environment provided for the boys by Eric was not his actual home, but instead was based in their school and community of friends and relatives in Ketchikan, and that it was Eric who was changing that stable situation. The court found that even though Eric had perfectly sensible reasons for leaving it was the best interests of the children that the court was considering, not Eric's. The court then concluded that had Eric chosen to remain in Ketchikan, the parties would have been equal on this factor but because Eric had chosen to leave and uproot the children, Katherine had gained a small edge regarding this factor. This conclusion is supported by the record. Three of Eric's witnesses testified that they thought both of the boys were doing well at White Cliff School and would continue to do so. None of these witnesses had any knowledge of the impact of the move on the boys. Terri Robbins thought the boys would do well if they remained at White Cliff School. As discussed below, [31] the court found that while the boys would have access to various native tribes in Washington, such access was not as meaningful to the boys as the proximity to the Tsimshian culture they would have in Ketchikan. The court was also troubled by Eric's failure to include Katherine in the decision to move. Eric testified that he told Katherine, over the phone, about the move but not about what date he had in mind. And he left Ketchikan with the boys, knowing Katherine was out of town on a trip, without telling her when he would be leaving. [32] While Eric has family in Shelton to whom the boys had previously had some access, all the evidence showed that the boys were doing well in a good school in Ketchikan, that the boys' Tsimshian culture would be absent from their life in Shelton, and that Katherine could care for them. The court's determination of what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the boys requires it to consider all of the factors that directly affect the well-being of the children, [33] not merely whether the move to Shelton will adversely affect the boys. The court's finding that keeping the boys in Ketchikan was better for them than moving to Shelton is supported by the record.
The other significant basis for the court's custody determination was the court's finding on factor five that, in this case, the stable environment was the children's school and social surroundings in Ketchikan, not the home Eric provided, and that Eric was the one disrupting that stability. The superior court concluded that social needs include cultural needs, and that living in Washington and having access to northwest coast tribes, but not the boys' Tsimshian culture in Metlakatla, was insufficient to meet this social need of the children. Eric argues that there was no evidence that Katherine had tried to bring the boys into their native culture. But Katherine testified that the boys had seen their Tsimshian relatives on at least two occasions, that she would expose them to that culture more if she had custody, and that she believed it to be an important part of their upbringing that they would not get in Washington. The superior court's finding that proximity to the Tsimshian culture was an important part of the boys' social needs is not clearly erroneous. It is uncontroverted that in Washington they would be exposed only to various northwest coast tribes, not their Tsimshian culture. And both parents agreed the boys' native heritage was an important element in their upbringing.