Opinion ID: 1234884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Awarding Sole Legal Custody and Primary Physical Custody of Kristina to Anne?

Text: The dispute in this appeal centers on the custody of Kristina. We have noted previously that child custody disputes are among the most difficult decisions a trial court must face. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining custody. Julsen v. Julsen, 741 P.2d 642, 648-49 (Alaska 1987) (citing McDanold v. McDanold, 718 P.2d 467, 468 (Alaska 1986)). We reverse a trial court's custody determination only if ... convinced that the record shows an abuse of discretion or if controlling factual findings are clearly erroneous. Id. at 649. An abuse of discretion may be found where the trial court considered improper factors, failed to consider statutorily-mandated factors, or improperly weighed certain factors in making its determination. Id. A factual finding by the trial court will be found clearly erroneous when we are `left with a definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made, even though there may be evidence to support the finding.' Brosnan v. Brosnan, 817 P.2d 478, 480 (Alaska 1991) (quoting Martens v. Metzgar, 591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979)) (emphasis added). Thus, we do not readily second guess a trial court's custody determination. Rather, we accord substantial deference to its decision and rely on its judgment in close cases when substantial evidence supports both sides. In determining custody, the trial court considered all of the statutorily-mandated factors set out in AS 25.24.150 and determined that the parties were equal in all factors except subsection (c)(2): the capability and desire of the parent to meet the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child. The court found that both parents are capable of meeting Kristina's needs ... [but] on balance, Mrs. Dingeman is better suited to meet those needs than is Dr. Dingeman. Bob urges this court to reverse the custody award, arguing that (1) several of the trial court's factual findings are clearly erroneous; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by considering improper factors in making its decision and giving improper weight to other factors.
The trial court made several statements and findings concerning the parties that provide the context for the difficult decision the trial court faced. The court discussed the clear animosity between the parents and the fact that such feelings affected their testimony at trial. As a result, [t]he trial in this case was ugly. Mud was slung and lies were told. The court concluded that neither side has ownership of the truth and the objective facts... . [Rather the] truth lies somewhere between the parties' perception of reality. After considering the statutorily-mandated factors in light of these findings, the court found that the only factor which distinguishes between the parents is Anne Dingeman's somewhat greater ability to meet the needs of Kristina. The court based this finding on two specific factors: (1) Dr. Dingeman's need to dominate in relationships; and (2) Dr. Dingeman's occasional inability to put the needs of Kristina over his needs. Bob argues that neither factor is supported by the evidence. The record provides sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Bob tends to dominate in relationships. The court relied on the Child Custody Investigator's opinion, which it found to be supported by the reports of Anne and of Bob's son Matthew, and the report of Dr. Cragan, who conducted a psychological test of Bob for custody purposes. These sources all presented evidence that Bob preferred to be the dominating or controlling individual in a relationship. The trial judge was in a unique position to consider and weigh the testimony of the witnesses, particularly Anne and Bob, and the court gave more credit to Anne's testimony on this issue. [3] The evidence and the record thus support the factual finding of the trial court and the finding is not clearly erroneous. [4] The court also found that on occasion, though certainly not consistently, Dr. Dingeman has been unable to separate Kristina's needs from his needs. The court relied on the fact that Bob changed daycare frequently, often kept Kristina in his office during working hours, and did not deal effectively with ear problems Kristina was experiencing. The trial court found that although Bob generally was able to put Kristina's needs first, at times his ability to recognize Kristina's needs was clouded by his overriding concerns about Mrs. Dingeman attempting to interfere with his custody rights. This finding is supported by the evidence presented at trial and is therefore not clearly erroneous.
The court noted specifically that it had serious concerns as to either parent's desire or ability to allow the other to have a full relationship with Kristina. The court therefore found that AS 25.24.150(c)(6) did not favor either parent. Bob argues that there is no evidence to support the court's conclusion that he would not foster an open relationship between Kristina and Anne. He points specifically to the trial court's statement that [b]ecause of the factual situation, it is more difficult to point to specific examples of Dr. Dingeman's reluctance to allow a full and open relationship. The trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, as sufficient factual evidence exists in the record to support the court's finding that the animosity between this couple would not allow either one to encourage a relationship between Kristina and the other parent. Judge Greene concluded that the depth of the feelings and the dynamics of the relationship between Anne Dingeman and Robert Dingeman make it impossible for either of them willingly to foster an open and loving frequent relationship between Kristina and the other parent. .. . [E]ither would obey court orders that were entered, but ... neither is able to do the extra things required to foster an emotional relationship. Despite the lack of specific factual situations that the court can point to, multiple indications of Bob's feelings towards Anne exist in the record that support the trial court's conclusion. He testified at trial that Anne had a personality disorder which Kristina should not be exposed to, that Anne was irrational, and that he had done nothing wrong to contribute to or cause the breakup of his marriage. He hired private detectives to follow Anne, and taped several of their conversations without her knowledge. Judge Greene admonished Bob at trial for laughing and grimacing while Anne was testifying. After witnessing his demeanor and testimony, in conjunction with the evidence presented, Judge Greene assessed the weight and the credibility of the evidence and found that the feelings between Bob and Anne would prevent Bob from fostering an open relationship between Kristina and Anne. [5]