Opinion ID: 1280733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: findings of fact on remand

Text: This court has been asked to expand upon the findings of fact supporting its ruling that Constance Holl have sole legal custody of the Holl children, rather than ordering joint [shared] legal custody of the children. Specifically, the Supreme Court has inquired how alleged instances of abuse affected Roger Holl's suitability as a joint custodian of the children, and whether post separation conduct tends to support joint custody. This court found it proper to bifurcate the physical custody of the children, but not the legal custody. The custodial parent  regardless whether there is a sharing of legal custody  will determine such things as what the children eat and wear, daily responsibilities around the home, curfews, what school the child attends, and the extracurricular activities of the child. Among the matters of significant concern in which both parents ought to be involved include permission to marry before age 16, whether to approve elective surgery, whether to remain in school, what to do after high school, and what to do with the child's property. Of these, permission to marry requires both parents to approve. The other matters generally only require one parent's approval even in a unitary family. It is seldom that parents exercise these legal responsibilities in any family. The rarity of the need to exercise such powers does not diminish the significance of the moments of their exercise, and underscores the importance of them to the child. Roger was not given joint legal custody based on his past behavior. The only basis for predicting human conduct is prior experience and common sense. When a parent has been domineering, physically and emotionally abusive, disparaging of others, and generally uncooperative unless they got their way, then a court can only conclude that is how they will behave in the future. [1] Examples of Roger Holl's uncooperative, abusive and disparaging conduct can be found in the record on appeal at transcript pp. 207-12, 214, 240, 245, 246-47, 249, 424-25, 432, 1255-59. Also see, record, at pp. 41-50. To the extent that physical and emotional abuse and disparagement were demonstrated by Roger Holl, his conduct toward Constance in front of the children taught the children how not to behave toward anyone, much less a family member. Parental misconduct by Roger Holl in front of the Holl children is described in the appellate record at transcript pp. 207, 424, and 1265. See also, appellate record pp. 41-50, esp. p. 48 [pretrial affidavits were made part of the trial record by stipulation of counsel.] The lack of spousal support within the marriage, i.e., failure to help maintain the home, the sewage incident, etc., demonstrate a failure to communicate and a destructive self-righteousness. These failures to aid in his children's welfare demonstrate Roger's tendency to let his emotions get in the way of acting in the best interests of the children on fundamental practical aspects of every-day life. This court cannot conclude that such a person should share authority with the primary, day-to-day custodian on matters requiring legal authority. Roger's post-separation conduct does not lead to a different result. The record reflected that Roger was seeking equal physical and legal custody and did so to the point of discouraging and opposing Constance's plan to move to where she could be employed in her profession. See transcript pp. 448, 1299-1300. This behavior only further demonstrates his unwillingness to accommodate others, a trait which is necessary for effective shared legal custody. Parenting inadequacy and inability to cooperate is demonstrated thoughtout the appellate record, including at transcript pp. 72-74, 219-22, 236-37, 436, 450. Despite the above, Mr. Holl has standard visitation of a non-custodial parent in order to promote the children's best interest. This court  and the law  believes that it is important for non-custodial parent to have significant and meaningful relationships with their children, not as a benefit or right of parenthood, but because it is in the interest of children to know their parents. The legislature has observed that physical custody may not be shared in all cases. It has also stated that, subject to the rubric of the best interests of the child, that both parents should have the opportunity to guide and nurture their children. The intention that parents have the opportunity to guide and nurture is being fulfilled when non-custodial parents exercise visitation. The court has found Roger Holl and Constance Holl to have demonstrated an inability to co-parent, because they cannot cooperate. It has found that Roger Holl can sustain a non-custodial parenting role through standard visitation. The court has found that when serious issues requiring the exercise of legal responsibility arise, the duty should reside wholly in the primary custodial parent. The record demonstrates that Roger acts in an uncooperative and abusive manner which can be expected to surface in contentious bickering at the very times when calm and a single voice of reason are most needed. For these reasons, this court finds that joint legal custody is inappropriate in this case. Dated this 3 day of August, 1990, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Peter A. Michalski PETER A. MICHALSKI Superior Court Judge