Opinion ID: 1130278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Restrictions Regarding Alcohol Consumption and Sexual Behavior

Text: Mariscal challenges three conditions of custody which were included in the superior court's order. As noted above, the superior court imposed the following conditions regarding the consumption of alcohol: (1) that [n]either party shall use ... alcohol ... while Zachory is in his or her custody; and (2) that [n]either party shall drive with the child as a passenger within 12 hours after having consumed alcohol. Mariscal first notes that the superior court found that there is no evidence of alcohol abuse. She's an occasional, moderate, and social drinker. There's no abuse. Her consumption is limited and controlled.... In light of these findings, Mariscal argues that it was an abuse of discretion to impose such stringent limitations on her use of alcohol. She argues that the conditions would prohibit her from even having a single glass of wine with dinner so long as Zachory was in her custody. Further, the conditions are arbitrary because the twelve hour waiting period between having a drink and driving would, for example, prevent her from driving with Zachory in the car the morning after she had a single drink the night before. As to the superior court's provision that neither parent expose Zachory to inappropriate sexual behavior, Mariscal argues that the provision is demeaning and that it is entirely inappropriate for a court gratuitously to incorporate such a condition into a custody order in the complete absence of any evidence suggesting the existence of a problem. Provisions of a custody award must be supported by findings of fact demonstrating that the superior court properly considered the best interests of the child. [3] We have previously stated that such factors as a parent's sexual conduct are only relevant insofar as it may be shown to affect the person's relationship to the child. [4] Further, absent evidence of such an effect, we have cautioned trial courts against reference to such factors [t]o avoid even the suggestion that a custody award stems from a life style conflict between a trial judge and a parent. [5] This caution reflects not only a concern that the superior court consider proper factors in making a custody decision, but also that the superior court not unnecessarily impose its moral values upon a litigant. These principles are applicable to the superior court's imposition of the questioned conditions of custody. In the instant case, the superior court made no findings with respect to Mariscal's sexual conduct, and specifically found that there was no evidence of alcohol abuse on her part. Additionally, we are of the view that the conditions prohibiting use of alcohol when Zachory is in her custody, as well as driving with Zachory within 12 hours after having consumed alcohol, are unreasonably burdensome and insufficiently related to Zachory's best interests. We therefore conclude that the imposition of these conditions was an abuse of discretion, and therefore all three conditions should be vacated.