Opinion ID: 2520463
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Custody of Cody

Text: Ernest argues that the superior court abused its discretion by awarding primary physical custody of Cody to Judy despite the custody investigator's recommendation that Ernest should have primary physical custody of all three children. Ernest complains that the superior court simply ignored the custody investigator's report without explaining why the court chose to disregard the report. Ernest also argues that the court did not address adequately the factors required under AS 25.24.150, [9] making it impossible to determine the basis for the court's decision. We have previously held that the trial court is not obligated to adopt a custody investigator's recommendations. [10] In Evans v. Evans , we rejected the mother's claim that the trial court erred in failing to accord more credit to the testimony of the neutral custody investigator than that of other biased witnesses. [11] We reasoned that the court ordinarily has no obligation to accept expert testimony when it finds other evidence more persuasive; nor is the court bound to favor the testimony of an ostensibly neutral witness who is unconvincing over that of a witness who testifies convincingly despite circumstances suggesting potential bias. [12] As our reasoning in Evans suggests, a custody investigator's report is just one of many pieces of evidence that is available to a trial court in the resolution of a custody dispute. As with other types of evidence, it is within the trial court's discretion to give the report the amount of weight the court deems appropriate. The trial court is under no obligation to make specific findings regarding the report as long as the court considers the appropriate statutory factors when making custody determinations. [13] We therefore conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in this case by reaching a decision that contradicted the custody investigator's recommendation or by declining to discuss the report explicitly. We next examine whether the superior court abused its discretion in its application of the statutory custody factors. The superior court's oral findings indicate that the court weighed the relevant statutory custody factors outlined in AS 25.24.150. We have consistently held that the trial court need not refer to all the statutory factors in explaining its custody decision.... In other words, `[e]xpress mention of each factor is not required.'  [14] Here, the superior court's oral findings reflect that the court did weigh the relevant factors, even if it did not explicitly refer to the statute when doing so. For instance, the superior court considered the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the children, as well as the capability and desire of each parent to meet those needs, [15] when it examined Judy's decision to leave the children with the Riggs family. The custody investigator had characterized this decision as evidence that Mother failed to provide for the children during Father's incarceration. The superior court judge disagreed, remarking that the decision that was probably the hardest to make but showed a strength of character at some level was [Judy's] decision to let the Riggs take the children. I think ... that shows [that she was] putting [the] children first.... The superior court also considered the impact of substance abuse on the children. [16] The trial court found that Judy did abuse alcohol while Ernest was in jail but concluded that Judy had resolved her problems with alcohol. Similarly, the superior court considered the parties' willingness to foster an open relationship between the children and the other parent. [17] In setting up a visitation schedule, the trial court observed that Ernest had probably influenced the children's perception of Judy in a negative manner. The superior court's comments indicate that the factor the court weighed most heavily was the need for stability and continuity in Cody's life. [18] In an exchange with Ernest, the trial judge noted, it seems to me that [Ernest and Judy] have come to this arrangement regarding the children where, clearly, Cody is being shared back and forth. He seems to be doing fine and I don't see much reason to change that.... In addition, when setting up a visitation schedule, the trial court considered the need for Cody to have meaningful relationships with his sisters. [19] Because the superior court's consideration of the statutory factors can be discerned from its oral findings and from the record, we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it granted sole physical custody of Cody to Judy.