Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Susan M.'s motions for sanctions, make-up visitation, and an injunction preventing Paul H. from relocating with the children to California. The court interpreted AS 25.20.140, holding that a custodial parent has a "just excuse" for denying visitation when acting on a reasonable, good-faith belief that denial is in the children's best interests. The court cautioned that unilateral suspension of visitation is generally improper and should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Paul denied Susan court-ordered visitation willfully and without just excuse under AS 25.20.140.
- Whether the superior court properly denied Susan's request for sanctions and make-up visitation.
- Whether the superior court considered and ruled on Susan's oral motion to modify custody and enjoin relocation.
- Whether Paul's anticipated relocation to California constituted a substantial change in circumstances requiring a best-interests analysis.
- Whether Susan was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and best-interests determination based on the denial of visitation and the planned relocation.
Holdings
- A custodial parent denies visitation without just excuse when the parent denies visitation for any reason other than a reasonable and good-faith belief that withholding visitation is in the child's best interests.
- Paul did not deny Susan visitation without just excuse because he reasonably and in good faith withheld visitation based on Susan's repeated violations of the supervised-visitation requirement and concerns that she might again flee with or manipulate the children.
- The superior court did not refuse to consider Susan's oral motion to modify custody and enjoin relocation; it permitted her to present evidence and ruled on the motion on its merits.
- Paul's planned relocation to California did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances requiring a new best-interests analysis because the relocation was expressly anticipated and approved in the parties' settlement agreement and custody order.
Key quotations
“We affirm but strongly caution that a parent’s unilateral suspension of the other parent’s visitation based on perceived violations of a custody agreement is improper in all but exceptional circumstances.” (at -2-)
“Therefore, we reaffirm that a parent will be found to have denied visitation without just excuse when that parent denies visitation on any ground other than a reasonable and good faith belief that denying the visitation is in the child’s best interests.” (at -10- to -12-)
“Only in exceptional cases should the superior court condone a parent’s resort to self-help.” (at -14-)
Factual background
Susan and Paul are divorced parents of four children. After Susan secretly left Alaska with the children and denied Paul visitation, custody was modified to give Paul sole legal and physical custody and Susan limited supervised visitation; Susan later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor custodial interference. The parties then agreed that Paul could relocate to California after the 2013-14 school year, but Susan subsequently alleged that Paul had abused the children and sought sanctions for his withholding visitation and an injunction against relocation.
Procedural history
The parties entered a settlement agreement under which Paul retained sole legal and physical custody, Susan received supervised visitation, and Paul was permitted to relocate to California after the 2013-14 school year. Susan later sought sanctions and make-up visitation under AS 25.20.140 and sought to prevent the relocation based on new allegations and Paul's denial of visitation. The superior court denied all requested relief, finding that Paul had a just excuse for withholding visitation and that Susan had not shown a substantial change in circumstances; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.