Opinion ID: 2632133
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court properly considered and weighed the appropriate factors in the best interests of the children.

Text: A motion to modify custody will be granted only if two conditions are satisfied: (1) the non-custodial parent must establish that a change in circumstances has occurred; and (2) the modification must be in the best interests of the child. [5] The required change in circumstance must be significant or substantial, [6] and must be demonstrated relative to the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order that the party seeks to modify. [7] The superior court's analysis of the circumstances in this case took into account all of the relevant best interests of the child factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c), [8] including the needs of A.H. and L.H., the capability of Jenkins and Handel to meet those needs, A.H. and L.H.'s preferences, the relationship between the children and their parents, and the stability of keeping A.H. and L.H. in the same environment. The superior court acknowledged that substantial changes in circumstances had taken place, especially with respect to Jenkins's housing situation. However, the court concluded that the balance of factors had not shifted substantially in Jenkins's favor. In support of its decision, the superior court stated that it adhered to the analysis set out in its July 1997 order on Jenkins's previous motion to modify custody. In both decisions, the superior court based its decision on five factors: (1) the expectations of A.H. and L.H. that many of their complaints about life would be eliminated by moving in with Jenkins were wrong; (2) the stability of remaining in the same community in which A.H. and L.H. were born and raised; (3) the relatively better ability of Handel and his fiancée Jeannie Muir to meet A.H. and L.H.'s emotional and parental support needs; (4) Jenkins's work schedule; and (5) Handel's superior housing situation. The superior court concluded in both instances that A.H. and L.H.'s preference to live with Jenkins was outweighed by these five factors. In this case, the superior court again found Handel and his fiancée better situated to provide parental supervision and to exercise more mature parental judgment in their dealings with A.H. and L.H. The superior court based this finding on Handel and Muir's vigilance in monitoring the activities of A.H. and L.H., Muir's employment with the Thorne Bay School District, and the fact that A.H. is more willing to truthfully confide in Muir than in Jenkins. While acknowledging the preference of A.H. and L.H. to live with Jenkins, the superior court's ruling that their wishes were outweighed by other factors is rationally supported.