Opinion ID: 2824865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Current Custody Dispute

Text: The proceedings leading up to this appeal began when Andrea filed a custody modification request because of her new husband’s impending move to New Jersey. Andrea briefly mentioned domestic violence in her motion to modify, stating “[domestic violence] is being addressed in another motion. I would, however, like the court[] to consider these issues when making its decision.” The same day she moved to modify custody Andrea also filed a motion for an order to show cause. Among other allegations, Andrea noted that Marcus had a history of domestic violence and that Marcus’s second ex-wife, Angelec, had recently obtained a domestic violence protective order against him, which Andrea attached to her motion. Superior Court Judge Patrick J. McKay denied the motion for an order to show -3- 7027 cause but informed Andrea that she could raise these allegations at the custody modification trial. The superior court also ordered that an earlier custody investigation be updated. The updated report stressed that the children continued to be placed in the middle of their parents’ custody dispute and that the children needed consistency and stability above all to meet their needs. The report found Marcus was more capable and willing to meet the children’s educational needs based on interviews with their teachers that indicated that Marcus was the more involved parent. The report also noted that both children preferred to stay in Anchorage so that they could “be near their friends and complete school with them.” The custody investigator concluded that the stability factor5 favored Marcus because of his “support for the education of the children and for their team sports.” And on domestic violence, the investigator noted, “[the Office of Children’s Services] has been involved with this family on a historical basis but . . . nothing has been substantiated.”6 The investigator believed that “[t]he boys need to remain together” and underscored that they “need consistency” and “need to remain with their familiar teachers and friends.” The report ultimately recommended that Marcus receive sole legal and primary physical custody, with Andrea having physical custody during seven consecutive weeks in the summer and over certain holidays. 5 Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) lists nine best interest factors a court should consider in making a custody determination, one of which is “the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.” AS 25.24.150(c)(5). 6 The report did not discuss the new domestic violence order that Angelec had obtained against Marcus. -4- 7027 The superior court held a custody trial in November 2012. Andrea called as a witness Dr. Laura Jones, a child psychologist who had worked with both children. While Dr. Jones noted that Andrea had “played an important role” in the children’s therapy, Marcus “ha[d] been more actively involved.” And Dr. Jones testified that Andrea and Daniel “ha[d] had a more emotionally reactive relationship over the years.” Dr. Jones noted that “[Daniel] struggles when he does not have consistency and stability in his life, and certainly a big family move . . . creates a lack of consistency, a lack of stability . . . that has been difficult for [Daniel].” Dr. Jones explained that “for young kids, having physical . . . stability in terms of a very regulated, continual . . . experience of their life, their surroundings, the people they’re with leads . . . to psychological stability.” Andrea never introduced any evidence supporting her allegations of Marcus’s history of domestic violence, notwithstanding her brief reference to domestic violence in her motion for an order to show cause and the superior court’s statement to her that she could address her allegation in the custody trial. The superior court found that Andrea’s move out of Alaska constituted a substantial change in circumstances and then reviewed the statutory best interest factors to make its custody decision. The court found that “[Daniel] has some special educational and emotional needs which are currently being met here in Alaska.” The court noted that “both parties have the capability and desire to meet most of the children’s needs, [but] . . . the parties seem to be unable to control themselves or [are] oblivious as to how their continual bickering affects their children’s development.” The court did not give significant weight to the children’s preference because of their age and because “any preference . . . [was] in all probability not free of suggestion from their parents.” -5- 7027 The court found that “there is clearly love and affection . . . between both children and each parent.” And on the stability factor, the court found that “even prior to [Andrea’s] move . . . , [Marcus’s] home, with the paternal grandparents, ha[s] been a stable and satisfactory environment, probably the most stable environment in their lives; Dr. Jones has testified both previously and at this hearing, that stability is extremely important for [Daniel].” The court found that “both parties express a desire to allow an open and loving, frequent relationship between their children and the other parent, [but] neither parent [does] particularly well at this.” Regarding the domestic violence presumption, the superior court determined that “there [was] no current evidence of any domestic violence . . . in either household which would affect this court’s decision at this time.” (Emphasis added.) And the court found no evidence of substance abuse by either parent. The superior court awarded Marcus sole legal and primary physical custody; it awarded Andrea physical custody for seven consecutive weeks in the summer and over certain holidays. The court noted that “the overwhelming recommendation from the experts . . . is the need for continuity and stability in [Daniel’s] and [Bryson’s] li[ves].” Andrea filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that her earlier motion to show cause regarding Marcus’s alleged domestic violence was “not taken into consideration.” The superior court denied her motion, and Andrea appealed.7 We remanded for clarification on the domestic violence issue and gave the court the option to take additional evidence, but did not require it to do so.8 7 Andrea C. v. Marcus K., No. S-14996 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, July 28, 2014). 8 Id. at 4. -6- 7027