Graham R. v. Jane S.

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed an order modifying custody of the parties' child from Graham R. to Jane S. The court held that the modification proceeding was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, that Graham's substantial interference with Jane's visitation rights constituted a change in circumstances, and that modification was in the child's best interests. The court also concluded that any errors concerning hearsay statements about the child's preferences or evidence of Graham's prior convictions were harmless.

Holdings

1. Res judicata does not bar a motion to modify child custody because Alaska's custody-modification statute permits modification upon a substantial change in circumstances and a determination that modification is in the child's best interests.
2. Collateral estoppel did not bar Jane's custody-modification motion because domestic violence and custody were not actually litigated and necessarily decided in the protective-order proceeding.
3. A custodial parent's substantial interference with the noncustodial parent's visitation rights constitutes a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to support modification of custody.
4. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that sole legal and primary physical custody should be awarded to Jane.
5. Any error in admitting the child's statements about her custody preference was harmless because the superior court expressly gave the evidence no weight and did not rely on it.
6. Any error in admitting evidence of Graham's 1996 and 1997 misdemeanor convictions was harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether res judicata barred Jane's later motion to modify custody after the parties resolved an earlier domestic-violence protective-order proceeding.
2. Whether collateral estoppel barred relitigation of allegations concerning Graham's interference with Jane's visitation rights.
3. Whether Graham's interference with Jane's visitation rights constituted a substantial change in circumstances supporting custody modification.
4. Whether the superior court properly determined that awarding Jane sole legal and primary physical custody was in the child's best interests.
5. Whether the superior court committed reversible error by admitting or considering the child's hearsay statements concerning her custody preference.
6. Whether the admission of Graham's old criminal convictions was reversible evidentiary error.

Disposition

affirmed