Opinion ID: 2613572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's Findings Adequately Address All Relevant Statutory Criteria.

Text: Under Bird, the trial court was required to make findings of fact which address all relevant criteria of AS 25.24.150(c). Bird, 914 P.2d at 1249. Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)(6) directs the court to consider the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving frequent relationship between the child and the other parent. See Pinneo v. Pinneo, 835 P.2d 1233 (Alaska 1992)(custodial parent's efforts to sever other parent's relationship justified custody change). Kenneth argues that since the court's written order lacks an express finding on this factor, the court's findings do not adequately address this issue. This contention is contradicted by the record. While trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders, they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review. The court's oral order included findings that both parents' conduct toward each other is outrageous ... Each of these parents fail in their communication with each other, communication which is absolutely necessary for their children's well being ... Neither one of them respect their children well enough ... to communicate with the children's other parent ... [and] the victims ... are the children. The court determined that both parents were at fault for the visitation problems, and that the only way to resolve the matter was to order in minute detail any and all visitation and communication that the other parent is permitted or allowed. Moreover, the written order directly addressed this issue by providing detailed visitation guidelines. Taken together, the court's oral findings, as effectuated by its written order, are adequate to address the statutory factor and clarify the basis for the court's decision on this issue. In addition, Kenneth notes that under AS 25.24.150(c)(3), the trial court was required to consider the child's preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference. See Rooney v. Rooney, 914 P.2d 212, 217 (Alaska 1996) (statutory standard is meant to give weight to child's wishes). Kenneth argues that the court failed to make the required finding. This contention also lacks merit. The court's written order noted that the children are of sufficient age to formulate and express a preference and have done so with the custody evaluator. While this statement in and of itself does not outline or weigh the children's preferences, the statement adopts the conclusion of the custody investigator. The investigator does identify a preference on the part of both children to spend school years with their mother and summers with their father. The court followed this preference. Hence, the trial court's adoption of the investigator's conclusion adequately addresses the relevant statutory factor.