Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that a superior court may not grant an opposed motion to modify child custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court also required factual findings and an explanation of the reasons for the custody decision, and held that the record did not support denying the mother visitation during the school year. The court reversed and remanded the matter, while affirming that appointment of a custody investigator was discretionary.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a superior court may grant an opposed motion to modify child custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether the superior court was required to make findings of fact and explain its reasons for modifying custody.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by declining to appoint a custody investigator.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by failing to provide the mother visitation during the school year.
Holdings
- A superior court may not grant an opposed motion to modify custody when the parties raise factual disputes concerning the child's best interests without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- The superior court erred by modifying the custody arrangement without making findings of fact and explaining the reasons for its decision.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint a custody investigator.
- The superior court abused its discretion by failing to provide the mother visitation during the school year.
Key quotations
“We reverse and remand because an evidentiary hearing and findings are required in opposed custody modification proceedings.” (27 P.3d at 758)
“The superior court is not permitted to grant an opposed motion to modify custody without holding a hearing.” (27 P.3d at 759)
“Procedural due process under the Alaska Constitution requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” (27 P.3d at 759)
Factual background
The parties' 1996 dissolution agreement provided for shared custody of their son, and the parties later operated under substantially equal week-on/week-off and two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off schedules. When the child reached school age, the parents disputed whether he should attend school in Anchorage or Kenai and filed competing motions to modify custody. The superior court awarded the father primary custody during the school year without a hearing or findings and gave the mother no visitation during the approximately nine-month school year.
Procedural history
The parties' 1996 dissolution decree established a shared-custody arrangement for their son. After the child reached school age, both parents sought modification of custody based on their disagreement over where he should attend school and reside during the school year. The superior court decided the competing motions on affidavits without an evidentiary hearing or findings, granted the father's counter-motion, and denied the mother visitation during the school year. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The superior court was directed to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including an evidentiary hearing and findings supporting any custody and visitation determination.