Opinion ID: 2499971
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Must Reconsider The Close And Continuing Relationship Factor.

Text: Stephanie asserts that the superior court erroneously considered her unwillingness to encourage a close and continuing relationship with Maxwell in violation of AS 25.24.150(c)(6). [8] She argues that good faith reporting of a threat and possible child sexual abuse should not be used to punish her. She argues that her claim, although ultimately rejected by the superior court, was made in good faith and that under AS 25.24.150(c)(6) the court is precluded from considering her unwillingness to facilitate a relationship between Maxwell and Terrance. As written, the statute restricts the court from considering a parent's unwillingness to facilitate and encourage a relationship between the child and the other parent if one parent shows that the other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged in domestic violence against the parent or a child, and that a continuing relationship with the other parent will endanger the health or safety of either the parent or the child. [9] An affirmative finding must be made on both the actual existence of abuse and the risk of danger. [10] Once that finding is made, then the superior court must ignore the factor; that is, it must not hold against a parent an unwillingness to encourage a relationship with a parent shown to have engaged in sexual abuse or domestic violence. But the statute is silent on the procedure to be followed if the court finds that abuse has not been shown. Here, the superior court found that Stephanie did not show that the other parent ... sexually assaulted or engaged in domestic violence against the ... child. How a superior court should analyze the willingness to allow a close and continuing relationship factor once it decides the factual dispute concerning sexual abuse or domestic violence against the reporting parent is an issue that we have not previously confronted. Stephanie argues that it would be bad policy to hold her good faith belief that Maxwell sexually abused Terrance against her, in analyzing her willingness to allow a close and continuing relationship between Terrance and Maxwell. She argues that no parent in their right mind would ever make a good faith report of domestic violence or sexual abuse, because that ... report would be used to remove a child from the reporting parent's custody and to place the child with the ... parent who was accused of wrongdoing. Here, the superior court acknowledged that the allegations of sexual abuse were troubling and that neither party had been able to demonstrate what had caused Terrance to act out sexually. The superior court also noted that Stephanie had adduced expert opinion testimony from a highly experienced forensic interviewer of children and from a children's counselor who were generally supportive of Stephanie's suspicions. In light of the apparent good-faith basis of Stephanie's allegations, we conclude that the superior court should re-weigh the willingness to allow a close and continuing relationship factor. On remand, the court should not consider this factor against Stephanie unless she has continued her unwillingness to facilitate such a relationship in the period after the superior court made its evidence-based finding that Maxwell had not abused Terrance.