Opinion ID: 2499603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings Prior To Remand

Text: Bobbie Ann Hunter and Shaun T. Conwell have two young sons, S.C. and A.C. The couple never married but lived together for approximately six years. [3] Their relationship ended in early 2006 and the parties began living in different communities: Conwell in Kotzebue and Hunter in Fairbanks. [4] Conwell has been in a committed relationship with his current girlfriend, Kristen Walker, since 2005, and she lives with Conwell in Kotzebue. In June 2006, Conwell filed a complaint for sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the boys. Hunter filed no answer, so Conwell moved for default judgment. Hunter did not appear at the August 24, 2006 default custody hearing, at which time the superior court awarded legal and physical custody to Conwell, with summer visitation to Hunter. Nearly two years passed, during which time Hunter exercised her 2007 and 2008 summer visitation periods. On July 3, 2008 Hunter, acting pro se, filed a motion to modify custody. Hunter argued that modification was appropriate because it is in the best interest of the children, and a substantial change in circumstances has occurred. Hunter alleged that: (1) while talking on the telephone with S.C., she heard Walker screaming and shouting at A.C. in the background and was sufficiently concerned for her children's safety to call Kotzebue police and request that they conduct a welfare check; (2) Conwell often did not answer the telephone when Hunter called, changed his number twice, and was attempting to alienate [the] children against their mother; (3) S.C. asked Hunter whether Walker was his mother; (4) Conwell's job caused him to live away from the children for several weeks at a time; and (5) Hunter believed Conwell was neglecting proper parental guidance. Hunter requested sole legal and primary physical custody. On July 28, 2008, Conwell filed his opposition to Hunter's motion to modify custody. Conwell argued that many of [Hunter's] statements are not accurate, and even if they were, the allegations do not amount to a significant change in circumstances since the default custody order was entered. On September 3, 2008, Superior Court Judge Richard Erlich denied Hunter's motion to modify custody without a hearing. The court noted that custody modification is a two-step process: [f]irst, AS § 25.20.110[ ] requires the parent seeking the modification [to] show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, and if this burden is met, the court will proceed to examine whether modification is in the best interests of the child. The court construed Hunter's arguments as a) the alienation of the child's affection, which implicated AS 25.24.150(c)(6), and b) a failure to meet the child's needs, which implicated AS 25.24.150(c)(1) and (2). The court found no substantial change in circumstances and therefore declined to modify the custody order. The court did, however, impose a regular telephone visitation schedule with calls to be made between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays unless the parties come to some other written mutual agreement, and stated that [b]oth parties shall ensure that this contact is made. Hunter filed a motion for reconsideration on September 16, 2008, presenting new evidence of Conwell's alleged failure to comply with telephonic visitation, as well as two telephone log printouts showing 22 calls Hunter alleged she made to Conwell prior to the default hearing. Hunter requested that a custody investigator be appointed, and separately filed a motion requesting enforcement of the telephonic visitation order. Conwell opposed Hunter's motion to enforce telephonic visitation, explaining that he was making an effort to spend time outdoors with the boys in the fall months so they were sometimes unavailable when Hunter called. Conwell requested that the court modify the times for calls from between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. to between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. On October 16, 2008, the superior court denied Hunter's motion for reconsideration, again finding no substantial change in circumstances, and it denied Hunter's request for a child custody investigation. The court separately ordered the parties to abide by its telephone visitation schedule and declined to adjust the time for court-ordered visitation, which remained between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays. Hunter appealed the denial of her motion to modify custody. We reject[ed] her arguments regarding the initial custody determination as time-barred, but reverse[d] the superior court's denial of her motion for modification, and remand[ed] for a hearing on that issue. [5] In doing so, we examined whether Hunter alleged facts that, if true, demonstrate[d] that a change in circumstances ha[d] occurred, [6] and concluded that she had done so: If established at an evidentiary hearing, the allegation of verbal abuse, the allegation that the boys may still be left in the care of Conwell's girlfriend, and the allegation that the boys have exhibited significant anger and behavioral issues after returning from Conwell's home, could warrant modification of custody. Therefore, Hunter is entitled to a hearing on her motion.[ [7] ] We also noted other allegations that could justify modification of custody or visitation if proven at an evidentiary hearing, including (1) that work-related travel requires Conwell to leave the children in the care of third-party custodians several weeks each year, and (2) that Conwell failed to foster [Hunter's] relationship with the boys, including interfering with telephonic visitation, which we characterized as extremely serious. [8] We remanded the case to the superior court for an evidentiary hearing on these issues.