Opinion ID: 2332716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings Through Trial.

Text: Branwen Collier and William (Will) Harris are the parents of a daughter, Zada. [1] The couple ended their relationship in March 2006 and Branwen filed a complaint for custody of Zada. Trial was delayed to give the parties an opportunity to resolve their differences through a settlement conference. At settlement conferences held in May and July 2007, the parties came to agreement on several issues, including: child support, daycare, insurance, the schedule for shared physical custody, the name on Zada's birth certificate, and the parents' means of communication. At the time of the partial settlement, Branwen was a full-time student with a flexible schedule during the week and Will worked a conventional Monday through Friday work week with flexible time on weekends. This was the basis for the physical custody schedule, which provided for Will to have physical custody of Zada most weekends and Branwen to have physical custody most weekdays. A number of issues were not resolved at the settlement conferences, including: legal custody, the division of Zada's Permanent Fund Dividend, the use of the dependency tax exemption, and the start date for Will's child support obligation. The unresolved matters were left for trial. In February 2008 the superior court entered a partial custody order incorporating the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. The order was fairly detailed on the issue of physical custody, but the issue of legal custody was held in abeyance for another six months. The superior court established the parties' respective responsibilities for financially supporting Zada and ordered the parents to engage in co-parenting counseling to help them improve the effectiveness of their communication with each other. Trial was scheduled for September 30 and October 1, 2008 on legal custody. On August 6, 2008, Branwen filed a motion for appointment of a custody investigator. She claimed the appointment was necessary because [t]he parties have little history of communication, and it would be difficult for either party to gather the necessary information about the other without the assistance of a neutral investigator. At the same time, Branwen filed a motion for an order to show cause. She claimed that Will had violated the court's orders to pay child support, pay for daycare, maintain Denali Kidcare, and allow Branwen reasonable telephone access to Zada. The court denied Branwen's motion for appointment of a custody investigator but decided to delay ruling on the motion for an order to show cause until trial. In September 2008, less than two weeks before trial, Branwen filed a motion to modify physical custody. Branwen argued that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the May and July 2007 settlement conferences. These claimed changes included the failure of effective communication between the parties, Will's alleged violations of court orders, and a change in Branwen's schedule due to her graduation from college and entry into the workforce full-time. The superior court denied the motion, observing: [t]he court does not find a substantial change in circumstances. The court was clear that the scope of the October 2008 trial would be limited. The court ruled it would not revisit the issue of physical custody, support or other extrinsic matters in the absence of proper motion and due process opportunity to respond and evidence shall not be presented at the trial ... on modification of physical custody of the parties' minor child. Trial was held over two days in October 2008. The court found joint legal custody to be in Zada's best interest and ordered specific terms for parent communication to make joint legal custody successful. In addition, the court addressed Branwen's August motion for order to show cause why Will should not be held in contempt for violations of the February 2008 custody and support order. The court decided that Branwen's allegation that Will had not provided reasonable telephone access to Zada was not established by a preponderance of the evidence. But the court also found that Will had not paid his share of Zada's daycare costs. The court attributed this to a misinterpretation of the earlier order and declined to hold Will in contempt. But the court did order Will to pay Branwen $270.35 within 30 days for his share of Zada's past due daycare expenses.