Opinion ID: 2621955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Applied the Law.

Text: The superior court had concerns about the motives for Eniero's planned move to Oregon. The court questioned the economic viability of Eniero's plan and further determined that Eniero was not required to move to Oregon to care for her parents. Though the court found two legitimate reasons for the moveEniero's desire to live closer to her family and a desire to get away from Brekkethe court concluded that part of [Eniero's] motive [for the move] is a desire to limit Mr. Brekke's ability to be involved in his daughter's life. Eniero contends that the superior court employed an improper standard when analyzing the legitimacy of the reasons for her move. Eniero argues that she was not required to show more than a desire to get away from Alaska, be near family, or educate her child in another state. We independently review the relevant legal standards employed by the superior court. [2] We have set forth a two-step approach for analyzing a custodial parent's desire to move out-of-state with a child. [3] First, the superior court must consider if reasons for the planned move are legitimate. A move is legitimate if it `was not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation ... more difficult.' [4] Second, if the move is legitimate, the superior court must analyze the best interests of the child [5] while assuming that the planned move has already occurred. [6] The primarily motivated standard used in the first prong of the test should not be read to suggest that any illegitimate reasons for a move must be ignored so long as those reasons are not the primary motivation for the move. While a court should not find a parent less willing to promote an open and loving relationship between the child and the other parent because of a legitimate move, [7] we have not suggested that the best interests analysis cannot take into account how a move would exacerbate problems such as a parent's willingness to foster communication between the child and the other parent. [8] Indeed we have warned that [p]arents must be cognizant that their plans to relocate may negatively affect maintenance of custody because of the impact of the move on the child. [9] Thus, even motives that are not the primary motivation for a move can be taken into account in the best interests analysis. In this case, the superior court found two legitimate reasons for Eniero's move and did not find that the primary motivation for the move was illegitimate. The court proceeded to the best interests analysis. In the best interests analysis, the court explained that Eniero's illegitimate motive of limiting Brekke's involvement in Miranda's life was a factor in its determination. [10] We conclude that the court properly considered Eniero's illegitimate motives when considering the best interests analysis.