Opinion ID: 2357769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Best Interests Factors Under AS 25.24.150(c)

Text: In making a custody decision based on the best interests of the child, a superior court must consider each statutory factor in subsection .150(c) and must discuss the factors that it deems relevant to the case before it. [51] Though a trial court cannot assign[] disproportionate weight to particular factors while ignoring others, it has considerable discretion in determining the importance of each statutory factor in the context of a specific case and is not required to weigh the factors equally. [52] Here, the superior court specifically discussed each factor under AS 25.24.150(c). The court determined that most of the factors did not favor either party, but that two factors affected its analysis  the interest in maintaining stability and continuity weighed in favor of Barbee under AS 25.24.150(c)(5), [53] while the incident of domestic violence weighed in favor of awarding custody to Williams under AS 25.24.150(c)(7). [54] Williams argues that the superior court improperly weighed the stability and continuity factor equally against the existence of domestic violence. Barbee replies that the superior court properly discussed and weighed the best interests factors, and that it was appropriate for the trial court to focus on the stability and continuity factor in light of Williams's planned move to Washington. Because the superior court will have to reevaluate on remand the relative weights of the continuity and stability factor and the domestic violence factor in light of its findings regarding the alleged domestic violence, we do not reach the issue of whether the superior court properly analyzed the factors. We note, however, that several of our recent decisions addressing custody modification where one parent relocates out of state emphasize that the interest in stability and continuity described in AS 25.24.150(c)(5) cannot categorically favor the non-relocating party purely due to geographic stability. [55] In Blanton v. Yourkowski , we explained our reasoning: A continuity test centered entirely on the child's geographical stability would always favor placing the child with the non-moving parent. Yet our decisions recognize that courts may properly award primary custody to the relocating parent when that parent offers superior emotional stability. Thus, the continuity and stability factor does not preordain the result in such cases; instead, it commands a comprehensive inquiry into each parent's respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and the child.[ [56] ] We have concluded that stability and continuity can encompass a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, the relationship with the custodial parent, the home provided by the custodial parent, the children's school, the community of friends and family, the cultural community, ... the children's relationship with the non-custodial parent ... [and] stability of place. [57] It is the trial court's task to examine all of these factors and determine, in each case, which predominate. [58]