Opinion ID: 2593816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When One Parent Wants to Relocate, the Trial Court Must Determine What Custody Arrangement Is in the Child's Best Interests, Taking into Account the Reasons for the Relocation.

Text: Faith contends that the superior court erred in its award of custody because it was based on the wrong legal standard. She argues that the award was erroneously based on the court's consideration of whether the move itself is in the best interests of the child instead of presuming the move would take place and then determining what custody arrangement would be in the child's best interest if Faith moved to Florida and Chuck remained in Alaska. We agree. In today's mobile society, it is reasonable to expect that in divorce cases one parent may eventually choose to relocate. Courts making child custody determinations in these cases face a difficult task. Often the definiteness of a parent's move is uncertain or unclear, especially where the move may depend on the court's custody determination itself. A court may be faced with a situation where, before an initial custody determination has been made, a parent seeking custody will condition his or her move plans on obtaining custody. Or the court may be confronted with a custodial parent who would choose not to move if he or she cannot maintain custody. We therefore take this opportunity to clarify the trial court's task in these cases. Under the standards we have set forth in House v. House [2] and McQuade v. McQuade , a court making a custody determination in cases where one parent chooses to move away from Alaska must do so by determining what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child under the criteria stated in AS 25.24.150(c), including determining whether there are legitimate reasons for the move. [3] In applying this test, the superior court must consider the familiar factors set out by the legislature to determine whether the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child. [4] As to the legitimacy inquiry, we have said that a proposed move is legitimate if it was not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation ... more difficult. [5] The best interests analysis necessarily will include assessing the impact of the parent's move on the child. For example, if the court finds that a move is primarily motivated by the desire to frustrate visitation, the court must take this finding into account in its best-interests analysis. This standard applies in both initial custody determinations and custody determinations made on a motion to modify. [6] The court is to assess the best interests in light of all of the relevant factors, including the impact of the move on the child. No Alaska law allows a court to require a custodial parent to forego relocation if custody with that parent remains in the child's best interests and the relocation is not for an illegitimate reason. We conclude that the trial court does not have the authority to place restrictions on a parent's ability to relocate; [7] the custody determination must be made in light of each parent's situation, including relocation. [8] In the present case, although the trial court made extensive findings with regard to the best interests of Jeremiah, it did not do so in light of the fact that Faith was going to move to Florida. Nor did the court make findings as to whether she had legitimate reasons for the move. In making its conclusions, the trial court appears to have presumed that it had the authority to both prevent the move and restrict the region within which Faith could live with Jeremiah. Because the court does not have such powers, the child custody order must be vacated. On remand, in making the best interests determination, the court must consider (as it already has) the impact on Jeremiah of the move to Florida. [9] But it must also consider all of the best interest factors in reaching its decision. When it has fully considered all of the relevant factors, the court should make its custody award. We therefore remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and in light of the parties' current circumstances.
We REMAND this matter so that the superior court may make its custody determination on the basis of the best interests of the child, including due consideration of the reason for the mother's move to Florida.