Opinion ID: 1198921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Erred in Granting Dwayne's Motion to Modify the Child Custody and Support Decree without First Conducting an Evidentiary Hearing.

Text: Bethany argues that, because she opposed Dwayne's motion to modify and disputed many of his factual assertions, the superior court erred in ruling on Dwayne's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Alternatively, Bethany argues that the superior court committed reversible error by modifying custody without making any finding on the best interests of the children. Dwayne claims that, because Bethany failed to supplement her opposition when given the chance, the trial court's decision to grant the motion without a hearing was appropriate. Procedural due process under the Alaska Constitution requires `notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.' [3] We have repeatedly held that [a] party opposing a motion to modify child custody has the right to a hearing before the superior court grants the motion. [4] A hearing is required in order to give the parties an opportunity to present the quantum of evidence needed [for the court] to make an informed and principled determination. [5] We therefore agree with Bethany that the superior court erred when it modified the custody and support decree without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. We are not persuaded by Dwayne's argument that the superior court's choice to forego a hearing was justified by Bethany's failure to supplement her opposition. The superior court is not permitted to grant an opposed motion to modify custody without holding a hearing, and Bethany's affidavit squarely contested both Dwayne's allegation of unfit conduct and his interpretation of their agreement. Once Bethany had opposed the motion, she was not obligated to present any further opposition to the court in order to earn a right to an evidentiary hearing. The procedural posture of this case is similar to that of Hernandez v. Freeman. [6] There, the superior court granted the moving parent's child custody motion without responding to the opposing parent's letter contesting the motion and requesting an extension of time to secure counsel and properly respond. We held that the superior court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the proposed modification would be in the best interests of the children. [7] Although Bethany failed to make a formal request for a hearing under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 77(e), she never heard from the trial court on her request for a continuance to obtain counsel. Because the superior court failed to mail its order setting a new response date to the address identified in Bethany's affidavit, Bethany was never aware of the need to request a hearing. [8] Moreover, the trial court was obliged to exercise its independent judgment in determining what would be in the best interests of the children. [9] The trial court could not accomplish this task without first resolving the parties' factual disputes in a hearing. In sum, the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on this opposed motion to modify custody. Because we reverse the trial court's decision and remand to allow it to consider additional evidence, we need not address the adequacy of its findings regarding the best interests of the children.