Opinion ID: 2638013
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The move to Washington

Text: Eric argues that there was no evidence of a negative impact on the boys from the move. But the court was required to consider all factors that directly affect the well-being of the children, [30] and the absence of negative impact from the move does not automatically mean that custody should remain unchanged. The same is true for the length of custody in the context of the stable environment factor. Both are factors the court is to consider in its bests interests analysisand that is what was done here. Moreover, Eric's argument ignores several impacts of the move on the boys: the restrictions on their ability to see their mother and to have access to their native heritage and the community in which everyone agreed they had developed so well. In this case, the court found that Eric's relocation was a substantial change in circumstances, and the change was magnified, because the parties did not have the money to fly back and forth between Alaska and Washington. The visitation arrangement would thus be severely impacted by Eric's move. The court also found that the evidence showed that the stable environment provided for the boys by Eric was not his actual home, but instead was based in their school and community of friends and relatives in Ketchikan, and that it was Eric who was changing that stable situation. The court found that even though Eric had perfectly sensible reasons for leaving it was the best interests of the children that the court was considering, not Eric's. The court then concluded that had Eric chosen to remain in Ketchikan, the parties would have been equal on this factor but because Eric had chosen to leave and uproot the children, Katherine had gained a small edge regarding this factor. This conclusion is supported by the record. Three of Eric's witnesses testified that they thought both of the boys were doing well at White Cliff School and would continue to do so. None of these witnesses had any knowledge of the impact of the move on the boys. Terri Robbins thought the boys would do well if they remained at White Cliff School. As discussed below, [31] the court found that while the boys would have access to various native tribes in Washington, such access was not as meaningful to the boys as the proximity to the Tsimshian culture they would have in Ketchikan. The court was also troubled by Eric's failure to include Katherine in the decision to move. Eric testified that he told Katherine, over the phone, about the move but not about what date he had in mind. And he left Ketchikan with the boys, knowing Katherine was out of town on a trip, without telling her when he would be leaving. [32] While Eric has family in Shelton to whom the boys had previously had some access, all the evidence showed that the boys were doing well in a good school in Ketchikan, that the boys' Tsimshian culture would be absent from their life in Shelton, and that Katherine could care for them. The court's determination of what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the boys requires it to consider all of the factors that directly affect the well-being of the children, [33] not merely whether the move to Shelton will adversely affect the boys. The court's finding that keeping the boys in Ketchikan was better for them than moving to Shelton is supported by the record.