Opinion ID: 2261402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The court's factual findings regarding Alena's ability to support herself in Belarus and her relative position after this marriage were supported by the record.

Text: Alena argues that the superior court's findings concerning her ability to support herself in the event she returns to Belarus and her relative financial position before and after this marriage are clearly erroneous. She also argues that the court's written findings are contrary to its August 15, 2007 oral findings, and contrary to undisputed evidence concerning the state of the economy in Belarus. [30] We disagree. Alena testified that she still owns her apartment in Belarus and that the average pay in her former profession was $100 per month. The court orally found that although Alena has given up everything she has to come to this country, she could pick up and leave and go back to Belarus if she wants. The court recognized that it might be emotionally difficult for her to return to ... Belarus and it heard testimony that Alena's relatives now live in her apartment, but the court found, she has th[e] option [of returning to Belarus] and she can do what she wants to. The court made no other factual findings on this point. Alena offered only her own arguments as proof of the economic situation in Belarus and conceded at trial that, although difficult, she might be able to get a job paying the average salary of $100 per month if she returned there. This, coupled with the evidence that she now owns her apartment free of any mortgage debt, supports the trial court's conclusion that its award was sufficient to support Alena for a period of months in Belarus; it was not clear error. Alena does not provide a convincing argument that the trial court's April 2008 written findings conflict with its August 2007 oral findings.