Opinion ID: 6345004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Custody Modification Hearing

Text: Instead of ruling directly on Poole’s motion, the court held a hearing on Poole’s motion over three days in late 2020 and early 2021. The parties testified about a number of incidents that Poole asserted were violations of the terms of the existing custody order. -4- 7597 First, they testified about a dispute on Christmas Eve 2019. Under the custody agreement in effect, the child was to spend Christmas (which fell on a Wednesday in 2019) with Rainer and otherwise follow the normal alternating weekend schedule, which gave Poole custody on the weekend before Christmas. Poole testified that he asked Rainer to allow him to keep their child until Christmas Eve — more time than provided under the custody order — and that she initially agreed but showed up at Poole’s house with her mother and boyfriend on Monday, December 23 seeking custody. Poole called the authorities, who determined the child should leave with Rainer. Rainer testified, meanwhile, that she had agreed to their child staying with Poole a bit longer but that she later realized that she and Poole were not on the same page about how long they had agreed to extend the visit. Next the parties testified about an annual out-of-state trip taken by Rainer’s family. The custody agreement permits the parents to travel out of Alaska with the child during their custodial time and states that “[i]n November, [Rainer]’s family traditionally takes [the child] on a vacation. [Poole] understands and respects this tradition and shall make a good faith effort to accommodate that trip.” The order instructs that the parents “shall make good faith efforts to cooperate and accommodate trips and events with the other parent” in the event that trips fall outside their custodial time, but that absent such cooperation the custody agreement strictly controls. At least a month before the trip in 2020, Poole told Rainer that he did not want the child to be taken out of state, but Rainer sent him on the trip with his grandparents. Rainer testified that she had given Poole over 30 days’ prior notice, that the trip did not occur during Poole’s custodial time, and that Poole never explained why he did not want the child to go. Finally, the parties testified briefly about a dispute stemming from school holidays. Under the custody order, if the child has a three-day weekend off from school that falls on Poole’s visitation weekend, Poole may have custody for all three days. -5- 7597 Poole testified that on occasion he asked Rainer if their child had a day off but Rainer did not respond, and consequently Poole missed the opportunity to have a long weekend with their child. Poole admits he did not look online to see if he had the day off, but maintained that he had asked Rainer a couple of days in advance. Poole therefore contended that Rainer had denied him visitation. He testified that this had happened “more than two or three times.”