Opinion ID: 2357769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Modification Hearing And The Superior Court's Custody Award

Text: On June 24, 2009, the superior court held a hearing on Williams's motion to modify custody. The court initially found that Williams's reasons for leaving the state were a legitimate change in circumstances such that the court would determine what custody arrangement would be in De'Shawn's best interests if and when Williams moved out of state. The court heard testimony from both parties. Barbee argued that it would be best for De'Shawn to stay in Alaska because De'Shawn had been born and raised in Anchorage and Barbee's extended family members in Anchorage provided care and support to both Barbee and De'Shawn. Barbee explained how he provides for De'Shawn's financial, physical, and mental needs. He also testified that De'Shawn had been in a stable environment and that despite the parties' divorce he had encouraged the relationship between De'Shawn and Williams. When asked about the assault, Barbee admitted that he choked Williams, calling it a terrible mistake. He disputed that he ever beat Williams as she alleged. Barbee testified that he was taking domestic violence classes and planned to complete them within the month. Williams also testified that she provides for De'Shawn's needs. She agreed that De'Shawn was in a stable environment in Anchorage, but explained that he was still pretty young and very adaptable to changes. She also detailed how she would make sure that De'Shawn stayed in touch with Barbee if she moved out of state. Williams believed that it would be best for De'Shawn to move with her to Washington because she and her husband could provide a family structure including future siblings and financial security, and neither of them had any type of criminal or domestic violence background. After Barbee and Williams testified, the superior court observed that this was a close case and summarized the best interests factors under AS 25.24.150(c). The superior court found that De'Shawn had the typical needs of any child of his age, that both Barbee and Williams were capable of meeting those needs, that the child's preference was not a factor because of De'Shawn's young age, and that there was love and affection between De'Shawn and both of his parents. [3] These factors weighed evenly between Barbee and Williams. The superior court then turned to the fifth statutory factor, the desire to maintain continuity, [4] and found that De'Shawn had been in a stable, satisfactory environment and that Barbee's extended family in Anchorage was an important factor. The court determined that it would be in De'Shawn's best interests to continue the stability and weighed the fifth factor in favor of Barbee. Examining the sixth factor, willingness and ability to foster a relationship between the other parent and the child, [5] the court first noted that the factor might not apply to the case in light of the domestic violence between the parties, [6] but ultimately concluded that the factor did not favor either party. Finally, the superior court touched on the seventh factor, evidence of domestic violence, [7] and found that the factor weighed in favor of Williams because of Barbee's felony assault conviction. The superior court acknowledged that Williams had alleged other instances of abuse and filed other domestic violence petitions that were denied but suggested that none of the additional incidents had been proved. Thus, the court evaluated the seventh factor based on this one really big deal incident here where you choked her terribly and found that the seventh factor weighed against Barbee. Summarizing its best interests analysis, the superior court found one factor favoring [Williams] fairly strongly [and] one factor favoring [Barbee] somewhat strongly, and the rest of the factors [] equally balanced. The court concluded that the factor of stability and the existence of the extended family on Mr. Barbee's side . . . suggest that De'Shawn's best interest would be best served by having Mr. Barbee exercise what would probably be called the custodial period. The court ruled that it would maintain the current custody arrangement if Williams remained in Alaska, but Barbee would be awarded primary physical custody if Williams moved to Washington. On July 22, 2009, the superior court entered a written order memorializing its decision: 1. Shayla Williams'[s] Motion to Modify Custody is denied. 2. If and when Shayla Williams relocates out of state, Jomell Barbee shall exercise primary physical custody of the parties' child De'Shawn. . . . 3. As long as Ms. Williams continues to reside in Anchorage, the parties shall exercise shared physical custody under the current (previously ordered) schedule. 4. The parents shall continue to exercise shared legal custody. However, if Ms. Williams relocates out of Anchorage, Mr. Barbee may make all decisions regarding De'Shawn's education. Williams asked the superior court to reconsider the custody ruling on July 6, 2009; her motion was denied on July 22. Williams appealed the superior court's decision.