Opinion ID: 2633998
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The superior court adequately addressed the factor of emotional stability.

Text: The continuity factor includes both emotional stability and geographic stability. [20] Renae argues that the superior court abused its discretion by providing undue focus on the geographic stability of each parent, and thereby improperly gave a preference to the non-moving parent. In various cases we have emphasized the importance of emotional stability in addition to geographic stability. In Meier we described the appropriate continuity analysis when a moving parent seeks custody: Because the child will no longer be able to spend equal time with each parent in these situations, a court considering the child's need for continuity and stability in this context must examine not only the desirability of maintaining geographical continuity, but also the importance of maximizing relational stability. A continuity test centered entirely on the child's geographical stability would always favor placing the child with the non-moving parent. Yet our decisions recognize that courts may properly award primary custody to the relocating parent when that parent offers superior emotional stability. Thus, the continuity and stability factor does not preordain the result in such cases; instead, it commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent's respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and the child.[ [21] ] In McQuade v. McQuade [22] we concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding custody to the parent who planned to move because the record shows that the superior court considered the factors of stability and continuity and, in light of the particular facts of this case, chose to emphasize emotional continuity over geographic continuity. [23] Finally, in Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch [24] we reasoned that the trial court must engage in a symmetric consideration of the consequences to [the child] both if [the mother] leaves with him and if she leaves without him. [25] In other cases we have affirmed superior court decisions that concluded it was in a child's best interest to remain with the nonmoving parent. For example, in Rooney v. Rooney [26] we held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by granting custody to the non-moving parent because such a determination was appropriate based on continuity. [27] One important factor we considered in upholding the superior court's decision in Rooney to grant custody to the nonmoving parent was the quality of the child's support network where he lived. [28] Also, in Barrett v. Alguire [29] we upheld a custody modification that granted custody to a nonmoving parent in order to maintain stability of the children's environment. [30] In the present case the superior court considered both geographic stability and emotional stability and engaged in a symmetric consideration of the consequences to Ella under each placement alternative. Under the geographic stability prong, the court found that placing Ella with Michael would be appropriate because of Michael's continuous presence in the supportive environment of Homer, compared with Renae's move to Anchorage and potential move to Texas. The superior court did not provide an automatic preference to Michael as the non-moving parent. Rather, the court explicitly recognized that [m]oves of residence do not, alone, mean that the parent is less capable of caring for the child, and addressed important additional facts under the emotional stability prong. The court reasoned that Michael had more time to be present in Ella's life, that Renae was less capable of providing continuous care because she had less time and energy for the child, and that Michael had a supportive social network in Homer who would assist him in raising Ella. These facts indicate that being with Michael may provide Ella with not only geographic continuity, but also superior emotional stability because Michael's living arrangements are settled, and he is part of a community that will be supportive of Ella. Because the superior court adequately addressed both elements of the continuity test and came to a reasonable result in light of the facts, it did not abuse its discretion. [31]