Opinion ID: 2639210
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alaska properly exercised initial child custody jurisdiction as Timothy's home state.

Text: We turn next to the question whether Alaska properly exercised initial child custody jurisdiction. Alaska Statute 25.30.300(a) [25] sets out the circumstances under which a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination. The superior court asserted jurisdiction under subsection (1): if ... this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceedings. That decision was correct if Alaska was Timothy's home state when this proceeding was commenced in October 1999. Accordingly, we must determine whether Alaska meets the definition of a home state under AS 25.30.909(7). [26] For purposes of this discussion, the statute contains two requirements: that the child have been present in this state for at least six consecutive months before the commencement of the action, and that the child have been here with a parent or [a] person acting as a parent. Timothy was here for almost three years before the action was filed, so the only question is whether Lynne Bailey was a person acting as a parent. To answer that question, we must look to the definition of that phrase under AS 25.30.909(13). [27] That statute too contains two requirements that are relevant to this case: that the person have had physical custody of the child for at least six consecutive months before the commencement of the action and that the person claim a right to legal custody under the laws of this state. Physical custody is defined in AS 25.30.909(14) as the physical care and supervision of a child. We believe that physical custody as used in AS 25.30.909(13), therefore, refers to de facto, as distinct from legally awarded or de jure, authority for the physical care and supervision of a child. By contrast, legal custody in the statute refers to legally awarded, or de jure, authority for some aspect of the child's care. Using these terms as so understood, Bailey has had physical custody over Timothy since November 1996, almost three consecutive years before the commencement of this proceeding. Thus the only remaining question is whether she claims a right to legal custody under the laws of this state. Literally, Bailey has made such a claim since she seeks to adopt Timothy. But we think that the statute also requires that a claim of a right to legal custody be at least legally plausible. That is the case here, for Alaska recognizes the rights of nonparents to exercise legal custody of children over the competing claims of parents when the welfare of the child so requires, upon a showing that it clearly would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody. [28] That standard is at least plausibly satisfied under the facts of this case given Blake's personal circumstances, the fact that Timothy has not lived with her since infancy, and the fact that Bailey had been exercising physical custody of Timothy for almost three years before the present action was filed. In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Lynne Bailey has physical custody of Timothy and claims a right to his legal custody in the sense meant by the statute. She thus qualifies as a person acting as a parent under AS 25.30.909(13). It follows that the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the state's petition to terminate Blake's parental rights under AS 25.30.300(a)(1). Finally, since California no longer had jurisdiction and Alaska did have jurisdiction, the exercise of jurisdiction by the superior court was proper under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act. [29]