Opinion ID: 2463838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the children

Text: The superior court found that the sixth factor of willingness to foster a close relationship with the other parent strongly favored Taunya. The court found that while Taunya had promoted the children's relationship with Bill, Bill had only undermined their relationship with Taunya. The custody investigator found that neither party was sufficiently supportive of a relationship with the other parent, but found fault with Bill far more than Taunya. The investigator found that at times [Bill] . . . has not been supportive of Taunya while on phone calls with the boys. But the investigator also found that Taunya had not adequately facilitated communication with Bill and had not followed through on [e]nsuring regular video [instant messaging] between the boys and their father and that she had imposed the arbitrary time of 9 pm to end conversations. Bill argues that he allowed the children free access to a computer and phone to contact their mother whenever they chose, whereas Taunya limited the children's access to these things. In their interviews with the custody investigator, the boys confirmed Bill's characterization. Taunya counters that the boys could talk to their father every day at 8:30 p.m. but that she would insist on a 9:00 bedtime. She admits unplugging the phone cord to end these calls on several occasions, arguing that she did so only after Bill disregarded her previous requests to end the calls promptly at 9:00. Bill points to various efforts he undertook to support the children's relationship with Taunya. Bill argues that he attended counseling on how to handle blended families. Bill also points to emails he sent to Taunya in which he attempted to establish a spirit of cooperation. Taunya counters by arguing that the negative comments Bill made about her to the boys were an attempt to undermine their relationship with her. Taunya also notes various ways she has attempted to support the boys' relationship with Bill, such as mailing him school work or encouraging the children to make him presents. We have reasoned that when parents reside at a great distance from each other, it is appropriate to give greater weight to this factor. [11] In Silvan v. Alcina , we explained that [i]t is essential to have a custodial parent willing to foster an open relationship with the other parent when a great distance separates the children from the non-custodial parent. [12] In this case, there is evidence that both Bill and Taunya at times supported and at other times sabotaged the boys' relationship with the other parent. Both allowed communication between the children and the other parent but both also undermined the authority of the other parent in various ways. The child custody investigator and Diana Jacobsen both testified that Bill was more culpable in his attempt to undermine Taunya than Taunya was to undermine him, and it was not clearly erroneous for the superior court to have held that the sixth factor favored Taunya.