Brief Fact Summary. Mother and Father married and produced one child from the marriage. The two separated, but alternated custody and cooperated in making most major decisions. The trial court awarded legal and physical custody of the child to Mother.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Alaskan statutory law favors joint legal custody when possible, regardless of the physical custody arrangement.
Issue. Did the trial court err under Alaskan law by not awarding joint custody to both parents?
Held. The court’s ruling was clearly erroneous because the evidence did not support the court’s ruling that the couple were incapable of meaningful communication and/or negotiation.
Alaskan statute states that the court may award shared custody to both parents if shared custody is determined to be in the best interests of the child.
Two interrelated aspects are apparent in a joint custody arrangement: 1) legal custody, which means the parents share responsibility in making of major decisions affecting the child’s welfare; 2) physical custody, which means that each is entitled to the companionship of the child over periodic intervals of time. In an act amending the statute, the legislature expressed a policy favoring the award of joint legal custody, regardless of the physical custody arrangement.
The factual finding underlying the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous. The court found the two were incapable of meaningful communication and/or negotiation regarding matters that relate to the best interests of the child. However, the only area of irreconcilable conflict was what form of day care was best for the child. This one area of conflict does not support a finding of inability to cooperate.
The custody investigator recommended joint legal custody because the couple had the ability to deal with each other in a civil and mutual manner. At trial, both parties agreed that joint legal custody was appropriate. Although the disagreement over daycare represents a fundamental child care issue, it does not require denial of the legislatively preferred joint legal custody.
In Rose, we held that in marriages of short duration, where there has been no significant commingling of assets between the parties, the trial court may, without abusing its discretion, treat the property division as an action in the nature of rescission, aimed at placing the parties in, as closely as possible, the financial position they would have occupied had no marriage taken place.View Full Point of Law