Opinion ID: 1163297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are the Superior Court's Findings Sufficient to Support an Award of Attorney's Fees?

Text: Jones also argues that the findings made by the superior court are not sufficient to support an award of attorney's fees under AS 25.30.070(c). His argument relies on our decision in Kimmons v. Heldt, 667 P.2d 1245 (Alaska 1983). However, Kimmons does not address the standard for awarding attorney's fees when the basis for dismissal of the case is AS 25.30.070(b), [4] which is at issue here. We think that the reprehensibility standard discussed in Kimmons, which applies to situations governed by AS 25.30.070(a), [5] also applies to situations governed by AS 25.50.070(b). The essential distinction between subsections (a) and (b) is not in the quality of wrongful behavior required; it is whether a petitioner is asking for an initial custody decree or a modification of a custody decree of another state. We can think of no persuasive reason to apply different standards to cases governed by the two subsections, despite the fact that the two subsections contain different language. The key inquiry is whether the petitioner has abducted the child or has engaged in some other objectionable scheme to gain or retain physical custody of the child in violation of the decree.... Comment, 9 U.L.A. 116 (Master ed. 1979). We previously set guidelines for defining wrongful or reprehensible behavior. In Stokes v. Stokes, 751 P.2d 1363, 1366 (Alaska 1988), we wrote: The UCCJA does not define wrongful or reprehensible, nor can we find any reported cases that have done so. However, the commentary to section 8 of the Act provides some guidance: Wrongfully taking under this subsection does not mean that a right has been violated  both husband and wife as a rule have a right to custody until a court determination is made  but that one party's conduct is so objectionable that a court in the exercise of its inherent equity powers cannot in good conscience permit that party access to its jurisdiction. UCCJA § 8 commissioners' note, 9 U.L.A. 143 (Master ed. 1979). We conclude that for conduct to be wrongful or similarly reprehensible, it is not necessary that a child be taken in violation of an outstanding order or decree, nor is it a defense that no order or decree has been entered. It is sufficient when the conduct is so objectionable that a court ... cannot in good conscience permit the party access to its jurisdiction. Id. See Williams v. Zacher, 35 Or. App. 129, 581 P.2d 91, 94 (1978). We hold that this same standard applies to the instant case. Thus the question is whether under this standard the superior court's findings are sufficient to support an award of attorney's fees under AS 25.30.070(c). The superior court found that Jones wrongfully withheld/retained the children after a visitation. We hold that this finding is sufficient to support the superior court's award of attorney's fees. [6]