Opinion ID: 2632133
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The superior court gave proper weight to A.H. and L.H.'s desire to live with Jenkins.

Text: Jenkins contends that the superior court gave too little weight to the clearly-expressed preference of A.H. and L.H., who were fifteen and thirteen years old at the time of the court's ruling, to live with her. Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)(3) requires superior courts making a custody determination to consider the preference of a child, if he or she is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference. [9] In Valentino v. Cote, [10] we held that the well-reasoned preference of a sixteen-year-old can be a deciding factor in the superior court's decision to modify custody. [11] The superior court's rationally supported conclusions in this case provide a counterpoint to the facts in Valentino, in what can be a delicate and difficult determination for the court. [12] The superior court interviewed A.H. and L.H. and took their preference into account. The superior court stated that it was impressed with the way the teenaged A.H. and L.H. expressed themselves in their interviews. But the superior court concluded that their preferences, and the reasoning behind them, evidenced a great need for parental supervision and were outweighed by their need for the substantial guidance that the court found Handel better equipped to provide. This conclusion is amply supported by the record. First, A.H. and L.H.'s preferences are not mature and well-reasoned. Their desire to live with their mother is primarily motivated by their desire for greater social and recreational opportunities. Additionally, the record shows that the romantic involvement of the then fifteen-year-old A.H. with a twenty-year-old man in Castle Rock played a major role in her desire to move in with Jenkins. According to deBourguignon, A.H. is vocal about wanting to move south because [t]here is a 20 year old man she is involved with romantically, a relationship which her mother has not discouraged. The statements of deBourguignon are further confirmed by the testimony of Handel's fiancée, Jeannie Muir, in whom A.H. confided. Muir testified that A.H. had told her that A.H. and the young man were in love and having a sexual relationship and that A.H. wanted to start taking birth control pills before she went down to Castle Rock that Christmas. In addition, Muir, deBourguignon, and Handel all testified that they had seen a letter from A.H. to the young man. The letter, which was opened without A.H.'s knowledge by Handel and Muir, contained condoms. Second, the superior court concluded that A.H. and L.H. needed to be in an environment where their actions would be well-supervised and monitored. This conclusion was largely based on the different approaches by the adults to A.H.'s relationship with the young man. Muir's testimony concerning A.H.'s admissions about her relationship with the young man revealed that A.H. feels comfortable enough to confide in Muir about important issues in her life. A.H. does not appear to have a similar relationship with Jenkins, to whom she directly lied about her romantic liaison. Handel and Muir's behavior with respect to A.H.'s relationship with the young man, including their concern and inquiries, reveals a higher level of concern and supervision of A.H.'s activities than Jenkins provides. Also, Jenkins's work hours on afternoons and weekends give her fewer opportunities to supervise A.H. and L.H. An additional factor supporting the superior court's analysis is that Muir works for the Thorne Bay School District and has a work schedule that keeps her home in the afternoon and on the weekends. Third, the superior court concluded that A.H. and L.H.'s preferences should not govern its custody decision because it believed that the thirteen-year-old L.H.'s preferences were influenced by A.H. and the adults in Castle Rock. This is supported by the record. According to deBourguignon, L.H.'s feelings were greatly influenced by her sister and L.H. wants to please [A.H.]. Given that L.H.'s preference to live with Jenkins was the product of the influence of others, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in giving greater weight to other important factors and in finding that Handel and Muir were in a better position to provide supervision.