Bagby v. Bagby
2011 Alas. LEXIS 34
Alaska2011Background
- Bryan and Leota Bagby married in 1998 and have one daughter, Natalie.
- A 2007-2008 custody order gave Bryan physical custody during the school year and Leota summer/holiday visitation, with shared legal custody and travel costs split.
- Bryan moved to Arizona in October 2008, after the custody order.
- In December 2009 Leota filed a motion to modify custody; the superior court denied without a hearing, ruling no substantial change in circumstances from the move.
- Leota appealed, arguing Bryan’s out-of-state move constitutes a substantial change in circumstances requiring a hearing.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding that an out-of-state move is a substantial change as a matter of law and remanded for a hearing on modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does an out-of-state move by the custodial parent constitute a substantial change? | Leota: yes, move is substantial change. | Bagby: no automatic substantial change; needs hearing only if evidence supports. | Yes; out-of-state move is substantial change and merits a hearing. |
| Is a hearing required to determine if modification is in the child's best interests after a substantial change is shown? | Leota entitled to hearing to modify custody. | Bryan argues no automatic modification; facts must support. | A hearing is required to assess best interests once substantial change is shown. |
| Does the distance between parental homes affect whether a substantial change exists? | Leota argues the geographic shift demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances. | Bagby contends the prior order contemplated long-distance travel; move does not per se change. | Distance and out-of-state relocation reinforce that substantial change exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107 (Alaska 2002) (out-of-state move supports substantial change in circumstances)
- Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (modification thresholds and best interests analysis)
- Acevedo v. Liberty, 956 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1998) (substantial change/inquiry framework for modification)
- House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204 (Alaska 1989) (framework for considering changes in custody and visitation)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 5 P.3d 239 (Alaska 2000) (reaffirmation of substantial change rule and modification process)
- Long v. Long, 816 P.2d 145 (Alaska 1991) (vulnerability of visitation under long-distance circumstances)
- Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 27 P.3d 314 (Alaska 2001) (cohesive discussion of modification standards)
- Hunter v. Conwell, 219 P.3d 191 (Alaska 2009) (custodial modification standards and hearing thresholds)