Opinion ID: 2463838
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other needs

Text: The superior court separately found that Taunya was also better able to meet the children's physical, educational, and social needs. The superior court emphasized Taunya's track record as the parent who primarily cared for the boys during the marriage and after they moved to North Dakota. As to the children's physical needs, one witness testified that Bill obtained two dogs against the advice of the children's physicians. And Taunya generally criticized Bill's failure to take their son's medical needs seriously. Regarding the boys' social needs, Diana Jacobsen testified at the hearing that Bill's negative comments about Taunya could result in unhealthy attitudes toward women later in life. Bill argues that based on his parenting performance during the parties' shared custody in Alaska, there is no basis to conclude that Taunya would be a superior caregiver. Bill notes that the custody investigator found that the children could be expected to function in either parent's custody and repeatedly emphasizes that the custody investigator recommended that primary custody be with him. We have explained that custody investigators are simply expert witnesses and that their recommendations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in the same manner as testimony presented by other witnesses. [6] In Ebertz v. Ebertz , we found that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting a custody investigator's analysis and recommendations. [7] We stated that the critical question . . . is not whether the superior court erred in rejecting the custody investigator's proposed decision, but whether the evidence as a whole supports the court's decision. [8] Here, the child custody investigator acknowledged that the children could function in either parent's custody, and it was not clearly erroneous for the superior court to select the parent not recommended by the investigator.