Opinion ID: 2515107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal and primary physical custody

Text: Gretchen argues that the superior court erred in not awarding joint legal custody and that this case should be an exception to the general rule that joint legal custody is inappropriate if the parents cannot communicate effectively. The exception is warranted, Gretchen argues, because much of the fault for the parents' inability to communicate lies with John and because she would otherwise have no input about parenting decisions. Gretchen claims the court simply ignored the issue of custody and focused on visitation. In fact the court found that changed circumstances supported consideration of a modification to the custody award as well as to the visitation schedule, but ultimately decided that a change of custody was not warranted because [t]he parents still do not communicate well enough for this court to revisit the issue of legal custody. Both parties acknowledge that joint legal custody requires the parents to be able to cooperate in the making of decisions regarding a minor child. [8] The parties agree that they do not have good communication, a conclusion with substantial support in the record. In light of the parents' inability to communicate or to act appropriately with one another and with professionals involved in the daughter's care, awarding sole legal custody to John was not error. [9]