Opinion ID: 2633998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Considered Each Parent's Relative Capability To Care for the Child.

Text: The superior court may also consider, in determining custody in the best interests of the child, the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child as well as the capability and desire of each parent to meet these needs. [7] Renae argues that the superior court erred by considering each party's work schedule in making its custody determination. For the proposition that parental work schedules may not be considered, she relies on several cases from outside Alaska and on our opinion in West v. West. [8] In West, we considered a superior court custody determination that was based on a finding that a two-parent household was better for the child than a single working-parent household. [9] We held that custody awards may, not be based on the assumption that a divorced parent who remarries can provide a better home than an otherwise equally competent parent who remains single. [10] Importantly, we did not hold that a parent's work schedule could never be considered. Rather, we merely concluded that a custody decision cannot be based on the assumption that a two-parent household is invariably better than a singleparent household. [11] Indeed the effect of a parent's work schedule on the parent's capability to care for a child is regularly considered in custody cases. [12] Thus, in Meier v. Cloud, [13] we affirmed the superior court's custody award to a parent based on a finding that the parent would be available to personally care for [the child] on a full-time basis. [14] The necessary inquiry requires an examination of case-specific evidence of each parent's capability to care for the child. [15] Here, the superior court considered casespecific evidence revealing that Michael was more able to meet Ella's daily needs. The court concluded that custody with Michael was in Ella's best interest because Michael had more time to be with Ella as well as an excellent social network and supportive friends who take great interest in the child . . . and will assist . . . whenever necessary. In discussing the relative capability of the parents to meet Ella's needs, the superior court emphasized that Renae has less time available to spend with Ella, than Michael. The court then added that Renae's potential move to Texas could mean disruption, new social contacts, new employment, more time and energy necessary for a job and new living circumstances, and less time and energy for the child. This discussion does not improperly focus on Renae's status as a working parent. Rather, it provides case-specific evidence of why it may be in Ella's best interest to be with Michael. Because the superior court considered the specific context of each parent's capability to care for Ella, the court did not abuse its discretion.