Opinion ID: 2570321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejection of the custody investigator's recommendations

Text: Ebertz next argues that the superior court abused its discretion in rejecting the custody investigator's recommendations. Because the investigator expressly considered all the statutory best-interests factors, Ebertz contends, the court abused its discretion by rejecting his recommendations and relying instead on a single statutory factor  the length of time the children have lived with Bahma-Ebertz and the desirability of continuing the existing arrangement. [12] Bahma-Ebertz responds that the superior court considered the disputed statutory factors and insists that it cannot be the case that the only way to `properly' consider a statutory factor is to follow the custody investigator's recommendation. We agree with Bahma-Ebertz on this point. Ebertz's argument suggests that a custody investigator's recommendations deserve special status and should presumptively be followed. Yet we have previously recognized that custody investigators are simply expert witnesses and that their recommendations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in the same manner as testimony presented by other witnesses. [13] Here, the superior court accepted testimony from over twenty witnesses. Some of this testimony contradicted the investigator's recommendations, while other testimony agreed with those recommendations. We have held that a court may reject a custody investigator's recommendations and rely on other evidence as long as the court's findings are not clearly erroneous. [14] The critical question, then, is not whether the superior court erred in rejecting the custody investigator's proposed decision, but whether the evidence as a whole supports the court's decision. Because Ebertz separately argues that the court's custody decision is not supported by the evidence, we will consider that issue below.