Opinion ID: 2581842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requirements and Meaning of Our Prior Opinion

Text: Our prior opinion required the superior court, on remand, to assume that Faith would move to Florida, and based on this assumption, determine whether it would be in the best interests of Jeremiah to be in the physical custody of Faith or Chuck, using all of the relevant factors of AS 25.24.150(c). [7] In making this determination, we directed that the court should decide whether Faith's motives for moving to Florida were legitimate. [8] We also suggested, but did not require, that the court make a second best interests determination based on an assumption that Faith would not move to Florida. [9] Although we directed the trial court to determine whether Faith's motives for moving to Florida were legitimate, we did not specify in detail what the consequences would be if Faith's motives were found to be legitimate. We said that if a move is not legitimately motivated the court must take this finding into account in its best-interests analysis. [10] We should have added that if a move is found to be for legitimate reasons, the court should not hold the move against the party who proposes to move. The court should not find her to be, because of the move, selfish and unwilling to promote an open and loving relationship between the child and the other parent. [11] Legitimately motivated moves are a common feature of today's mobile society. [12] Such moves would be unfairly deterred if courts were to hold that the moving parent has demonstrated by her desire to move a parental deficiency or weakness.