Court Opinion

ID: 9609721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:30:29.19453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:33.263609
License: Public Domain

OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
This case involves a custody dispute over a seven year-old child, Shannon D. Matson. The general issue is the propriety of the trial court’s order rejecting the special mas*299ter’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and awarding custody to the child’s father.
Mr. and Mrs. Matson were married on January 15, 1972. During their marriage they resided in Port Heiden. Shannon was born on August 6,1974. The Matsons separated in August 1975. Mrs. Matson took Shannon with her upon their separation and had physical custody of her until December 1975. At that time she gave the child to her husband, and in February 1976, Mr. Matson placed Shannon in the home of his first cousin, Annie Christensen. At the time of the custody hearing, Mr. Matson lived next door to the Christensens in Port Heiden, which is a native village with about seventy residents. Should he be awarded custody, Mr. Matson intends to leave Shannon with the Christensens.
On January 1, 1978, Mrs. Matson took Shannon from the Christensen residence to her home in Kenai. Four days later Mr. Matson filed a divorce complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that custody of Shannon be placed in himself or the Christensens pendente lite. The court granted the motion, ordering that temporary custody be placed in Mr. Matson. On April 21, 1978, the divorce was granted, and pursuant to stipulation of the parties the custody issue was reserved for future determination.
The parties stipulated to the appointment of a special master, before whom the custody hearing was held on September 18,1979. The special master viewed the dispute as being between a parent, Mrs. Matson, and a non-parent, Mrs. Christensen. Consequently, he applied the legal standards articulated by this court in Turner v. Pannick, 540 P.2d 1051 (Alaska 1975). Turner stands for the proposition that before a non-parent may be awarded custody as against a parent, the parent must be found to be unfit, or to have abandoned the child, or it must be found that the welfare of the child requires that custody be awarded to the non-parent. Id. at 1055. Finding that the requirements of Turner had not been met, the special master recommended an award of custody to Mrs. Matson. He also found, in the alternative, that even if the standards applicable to disputes between parents were applied, custody should be awarded to Mrs. Matson. In custody disputes between parents a “best interests, of the child” test is applied, whereby all relevant factors are examined including those specified by statute. See AS 09.55.205 and discussion infra. Mr. Matson filed objections to the master’s findings.
On March 13, 1980, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision and an order rejecting the special master’s determination. The court decided that. Mr. Matson was seeking custody, and, on the basis of its own “best interests” determination, awarded custody to Mr. Matson. Mrs. Matson has appealed.
We are thus presented with two issues. First, we must consider whether Mr. Mat-son is actually seeking custody or whether he is merely acting as part of a subterfuge to gain custody for the Christensens. Answering this question will determine which legal standard is applicable; whether it is the rule of Turner v. Pannick or the “best interests of the child” test. Next we must ascertain whether the special master was clearly wrong in finding that, under whatever standard is applied, custody should be awarded to Mrs. Matson.1
IS MR. MATSON SEEKING CUSTODY?
It is clear that Shannon will not reside with Mr. Matson should he prevail, but we do not view this as conclusive that he is not seeking custody. See Carle v. Carle, 503 P.2d 1050 (Alaska 1972). Custody is not simply a matter of physical care and control of a child. Rather, as we noted in Delgado *300v. Fawcett, 515 P.2d 710, 712-13 (Alaska 1973):
“Custody” has no fixed legal signification. It involves a variety of parental rights and duties which vary according to the circumstances of the relationship of the child to the parent. Custody pertains not only to the parental control of the child, but is inseparably linked to the parent’s rights of access and companionship with his offspring. There are, of course, no precise contours to the complex of rights denoted by “custody,” . .. [Footnotes omitted]
Our examination of the present relationship between Mr. Matson and Shannon has convinced us that he is seeking custody. Mr. Matson visits with Shannon every day, and she spends the night with him about once a month. His residence at the time of the custody hearing was approximately 150 yards away from the Christensen home, and he has expressed an intention to remain nearby so that he may continue to participate in Shannon’s upbringing. We also note that nearly everyone is related in Port Heiden. Consequently, it is likely to be a supportive atmosphere for Shannon. Given these particular facts, we agree with the trial court that this is a dispute between parents, and that the “best interests of the child” test, set forth in AS 09.55.205, is applicable.
WERE THE SPECIAL MASTER’S FINDINGS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS? „
Although he relied primarily on Turner v. Pannick, the special master also found that the “best interests” of Shannon compelled an award of custody to Mrs. Mat-son. We have carefully examined the record, including the report of the lower court’s custody investigator, and we conclude that it was a clear error to so find.
A “best interests” determination in child custody disputes requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following: (1) the physical, emotional, mental, religious and social needs of the child; (2) the capability and desire of each parent to meet these needs; (3) the child’s preference; (4) the love and affection existing between the child and each parent; (5) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity; (6) the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving relationship between the child and his other parent. AS 09.55.205. It appears that Shannon has strong social and emotional ties to her present environment, where her needs are well satisfied. The evidence also suggests that she prefers to remain where she is, and that there is a great deal of love and affection between her and her present family. Shannon had been living with the Christensens in Port Heiden for several years prior to this litigation and has remained there during its course, so there is significant value in maintaining that continuity. Finally, although there have been some difficulties in arranging visitation, they do not appear to be insurmountable. Given these circumstances, we agree with the trial court’s disregard for the master’s findings. The findings were clearly erroneous.
Therefore, the trial court’s order awarding custody to Mr. Matson is AFFIRMED.

. The “clearly erroneous” standard of review is compelled by Alaska R.Civ.P. 53(d)(2) which provides in part:
In an action to be tried without a jury the court shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.... The court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.
See also 5A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 53.12[4] at 53-125 (2d ed. 1980).