Opinion ID: 4309230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: “Superior courts have broad discretion in child custody decisions, and we will reverse only if findings of fact are clearly erroneous or if the superior court abused its discretion.”1 “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves [us] with a definite and firm conviction that the superior court has made a mistake.”2 “An abuse of discretion exists where the superior court ‘considered improper factors in making its custody determination, failed to consider statutorily mandated factors, or assigned disproportionate weight to particular factors while ignoring others.’ ”3 “Additionally, an abuse of discretion exists if the superior court’s decision denied a substantial right to or substantially prejudiced a party.”4 “We review an award of child support for abuse of discretion.”5 But “[w]hether the superior court applied the correct legal standard to its child support 1 Riggs v. Coonradt, 335 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Alaska 2014) (citing Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392, 399 (Alaska 2013)). 2 Id. (quoting Ronny M., 303 P.3d at 399). 3 Id. (quoting Ronny M., 303 P.3d at 399). 4 Ronny M., 303 P.3d at 400 (citing House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204, 1206 (Alaska 1989)). 5 Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291, 295 (Alaska 2014) (citing Swaney v. Granger, 297 P.3d 132, 136 (Alaska 2013)). -6- 7281 determination is a question of law that we review de novo.”6 Finally, “[t]he adequacy of the notice and hearing afforded a litigant in child custody proceedings involves due process considerations,” which we also review de novo.7