Eric E. Barrett v. Katherine M. Alguire

35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) · Supreme Court of Alaska · November 16, 2001 · No. S-9934

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court decision modifying primary physical custody from Eric Barrett to Katherine Alguire after Barrett relocated out of state with the parties' children. The court held that relocation constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that the superior court properly applied the children's best-interests factors under Alaska law. The court also upheld the superior court's consideration of stability, the children's Tsimshian cultural connections, visitation, and Barrett's substance-abuse history.

Court
Supreme Court of Alaska
Writing for the Court
Carpeneti, Justice; Fabe, Chief Justice; Matthews, Justice; Eastaugh, Justice; Bryner, Justice
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Decision date
November 16, 2001
Docket number
S-9934
Procedural posture
Eric Barrett appealed a superior court order modifying primary physical custody of the parties' two children and awarding primary physical custody to Katherine Alguire after Barrett relocated from Alaska to Washington with the children.
Standard of review
Whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard is reviewed de novo. Child-custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual findings are reviewed for clear error. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Precedential value
Published precedential Alaska Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Eric E. Barrett v. Katherine M. Alguire
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

child custodyrelocationstandard of reviewappellate procedureindian affairs

Practice areas

family lawchild custodyrelocationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an out-of-state relocation by the custodial parent and children constitutes a substantial or material change in circumstances as a matter of law sufficient to require a custody-modification hearing.
  2. Whether the legal standard for a custody determination following a custodial parent's out-of-state relocation differs depending on whether the proceeding is an initial custody determination or a modification proceeding.
  3. Whether the superior court properly applied the statutory best-interests factors and whether its findings and weighting of those factors constituted an abuse of discretion or clear error.
  4. Whether the superior court properly considered the prior custody agreement, the children's stable environment and cultural ties, and Barrett's substance-abuse evidence.

Holdings

  1. A custodial parent's decision to move out of state with the children constitutes a substantial change in circumstances as a matter of law. Upon that showing, the moving parent is entitled to a hearing on whether custody should be modified.
  2. The legal standard for custody cases involving a parent's out-of-state relocation is the same whether the proceeding is an initial custody determination or a motion to modify custody.
  3. After a threshold showing of changed circumstances, particularly where the prior custody agreement did not address relocation, the court must determine the custody arrangement in the children's best interests under AS 25.24.150(c), including the impact of the move and the legitimacy of the reasons for relocation.
  4. The superior court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in weighing the prior custody agreement, the children's stable environment and cultural community, the effect of relocation on visitation, or Barrett's alcohol-abuse history.

Key quotations

a custodial parent's decision to move out-of-state [with the children] amounts to a [substantial] change in circumstances as a matter of law. (6)
The legal standard for custody determinations when one parent relocates out of state is the same for initial and modification determinations. (7)
While the parties' custody agreement "has no binding force on the court... [because t]he court must independently determine what arrangement will best serve the child's interests," (8)
The trial court's consideration of the stability of the children's environment in a custody modification case can encompass a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, the relationship with the custodial parent, the home provided by the custodial parent, the children's school, the community of friends and family, the cultural community, and the children's relationship with the non-custodial parent. (9)
Eric's proven alcohol problem was properly weighed against him, once the court found that it directly affected the boys. (12)

Factual background

Eric Barrett and Katherine Alguire were divorced in 1996, with Barrett receiving primary physical custody of their two sons pursuant to a custody agreement that provided no specific visitation schedule and did not address relocation. In 2000 Barrett moved from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Shelton, Washington, with the children to attend school, without giving Alguire the exact departure date. Alguire sought custody modification, relying on the relocation, the resulting impact on visitation and the children's ties to Ketchikan and their Tsimshian culture, and evidence of Barrett's alcohol-abuse history. The superior court found that the children's best interests favored Alguire and transferred primary physical custody to her.

Procedural history

The parties' marriage was dissolved in 1996, and Barrett was awarded primary physical custody by agreement without a prior judicial determination of the children's best interests. After Barrett moved with the children from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Shelton, Washington, Alguire moved to modify custody. The superior court found the relocation to be a material change in circumstances, conducted a best-interests hearing, awarded Alguire primary physical custody, and granted Barrett substantial visitation. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…