Opinion ID: 2638013
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The prior custody agreement

Text: Eric argues that his previous custody of the children should have been given more weight. But the trial court was not required to do so. Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) sets forth the factors the court is to consider in custody determinations, including those factors that the court considers pertinent. [22] While the parties' custody agreement has no binding force on the court... [because t]he court must independently determine what arrangement will best serve the child's interests, [23] especially in a case where circumstances had changed because of the custodial parent's decision to move out of state, a trial court in these circumstances should give a prior custody agreement the weight it deserves in light of all the events that have transpired since it was entered. The trial court's treatment of the prior custody agreement was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court stated that [t]his is the long postponed trial in this case, this is what should have happened in 1996. The court made it clear that because it found that the initial agreement did not in fact entirely represent or reflect [Katherine's] understanding of what it was supposed to be, [24] the court did not give the original agreement very much weight. The court stated that it would treat the parties as largely equal, except as previous conduct has an impact on the factors listed in [AS] 25.24.150. This was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found that Eric had inappropriately ignored Katherine's desire to exercise the visitation she thought they had agreed to. This finding is supported by the record. Katherine testified that at the time of the parties' dissolution, she thought she was agreeing that she would have liberal visitation with the two boys. She also testified that Eric thereafter made decisions about changes in the visitation schedule without consulting her. Eric testified on both direct and cross-examination that he told Katherine what the visitation schedule would be. He also testified that he told Katherine he was going to leave Ketchikan but not when. The court found that because Eric had custody, he had control over the children and that he did not go out of his way to allow Katherine to cultivate a relationship with the boys. This finding is not clearly erroneous. The superior court was not required to accord the parties' agreement great weight. And we give due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses [25] because, in this case, the court's decision to accord the initial agreement little weight was based in part on the testimony of the parties. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the weight it accorded the prior custody agreement.