Opinion ID: 1130278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Superior Court's Contingent Visitation Schedule

Text: According to Mariscal, Watkins has not indicated when and if he plans to move back to Alaska from Oregon. Because one of the parties has moved outside of Alaska, the superior court order directs the parties to agree on custody arrangements and submit to mediation if they cannot agree. As such, the superior court's detailed and potentially burdensome provisions regarding visitation, which Mariscal challenges, are not presently applicable. Because none of these challenged provisions is presently operative, we conclude that Mariscal's appeal of these visitation provisions is not ripe for adjudication. [7] Therefore we do not address Mariscal's various challenges to the superior court's visitation provisions. There is one aspect of the superior court's visitation decision which should be addressed at this time. Mariscal argues that in granting Watkins visitation, the superior court gave insufficient weight to the evidence of Watkins' abusive and anti-social conduct. [8] The superior court's findings reveal that the superior court did consider this conduct. However, Mariscal argues that in light of these findings it was an abuse of discretion on the superior court's part to grant Watkins extensive visitation. Mariscal gives an incomplete picture as to the superior court's assessment of the situation. The superior court noted that there remained a substantial amount of intranquility ... between Zachory's parents. For Watkins this had manifested itself in extreme jealousy resulting in yelling and accusations, inappropriate phone messages, and the involvement of Zachory in those instances. However, the problems were not unilateral. The superior court also noted that Mariscal was immature in how she conducts her relationships and uses Zack as a weapon against [Watkins]. Despite these problems between each other, the superior court observed that there was an excellent relationship between Zachory and each of his parents. Relying on the testimony of the custody investigator, the court found that the parenting styles of Watkins and Mariscal were complementary and that Zachory would benefit by exposure to both. The superior court particularly commended Watkins for his willingness to learn parenting skills and his work to develop a support network. Thus, it appears from the record that most of the problems resulted from the parties' inability to cope with their separation. However, noting that the parties had demonstrated an ability to improve themselves individually, the superior court indicated its hope that the parties could improve their ability to cooperate with each other. The record includes testimony that Watkins loves his child and shows a genuine concern for Zachory's care and upbringing; Mariscal's testimony that despite Watkins' jealous behavior, he never physically abused her; and an evaluation from the custody investigator that Watkins was a fit parent. In view of the record, we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in ordering divided physical custody of Zachory until he reaches school age. [9]