Opinion ID: 2635927
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: An Evidentiary Hearing Is Required Because Tammy's Allegations, if Proved, Would Warrant Modification.

Text: The superior court denied Tammy's motion without a hearing because it found that Tammy's allegations, even if entirely true, may not arise to the level of a substantial change in circumstances. Tammy argues that she made a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting [Chance's] welfare and that the superior court erred by denying her motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The superior court explicitly addressed the following allegations when it denied Tammy's custody motion: an informal change to the visitation schedule, Tammy's remarriage, Primo's remarriage, Tammy's relocation to Anchorage, Chance's behavior and poor grades, new stepfamilies, Primo's neglect of Chance, Primo's driving of Chance without a license, and Chance's alleged preference for living with Tammy. The superior court did not mention Tammy's allegations of child abuse or domestic violence. Tammy had asserted in an affidavit that Primo smack[ed] Chance with a rolled up newspaper in the buttocks, back and neck; that Primo had sent Chance to his room many, many times; and that Chance is frightened by the pretty severe `corporal punishment' administered to Primo's new stepson by Primo and Primo's new wife. Tammy's affidavit also alleged mistreatment of Primo's new stepson by both Primo and Primo's new wife. Thus, it alleged that Primo's new wife threw Primo's stepson onto a bed so hard he bounced up and hit the wall and fell to the floor; that Primo's new wife used a coat hanger to spank Primo's stepson; and that Primo spanks his stepson nearly daily. Because a finding of domestic violence would establish changed circumstances, [6] it was error to not address Tammy's allegations of abuse or domestic violence; an evidentiary hearing is required to provide Tammy an opportunity to prove her allegations. [7] In addressing Tammy's allegation that Primo drove without a license, the superior court remind[ed] both parties that driving without a license is a crime and . . . a conviction for such a crime may negatively affect custody rights. But the allegation that Primo drove Chance without a license is also an allegation that Primo placed Chance's safety at risk; the allegation that he drove without insurance potentially raises a question whether Chance could receive adequate medical treatment in event of an accident. These allegations, if still potentially valid, should also be considered during a changed circumstances analysis on remand. Furthermore, there must be an evidentiary hearing before Tammy's motion can be granted or denied because Tammy's allegations in the aggregate, if proved, potentially warrant modification. [8] Some of Tammy's individual allegations of changed circumstances would certainly not be compelling reasons to modify custody, but taken together, her allegations collectively require a factual hearing. [9]