Court Opinion

ID: 9570000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:14.143297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:35.874207
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I join in Justice Dimond’s concurrence to the extent he expresses dissatisfaction with the court’s attempt to draw a distinction between the administration of “welfare of the child” and “best interests” tests in custody disputes between natural parents and third parties. This court’s own prior precedents have employed the two tests interchangeably.1 Since I am of the opinion that there should be no functional differentiation in their application, I view today’s opinion as creating an unfortunate and unnecessary cleavage between the two. For it should be apparent that many complex factors must, of necessity, be weighed and analyzed by Alaska’s trial courts in attempting to reach just resolutions of custody disputes.2 Analysis of such factors receives little assistance through focusing on labels as opposed to articulation of meaningful criteria.
I concur in all other aspects of the court’s opinion.

. Bass v. Bass, 437 P.2d 324, 325 (Alaska 1968); Rhodes v. Rhodes, 370 P.2d 902, 903 (Alaska 1962).

. See Comments “Alternatives to ‘Parental Right’ in Child Custody Disputes Involving Third Parties,” 73 Yale D.J. 151, 157-59 (1963).