463 P.3d 180
Alaska2020Background:
- Parents Brian Ott and Haley Runa separated when their daughter was toddler-aged; they initially followed an informal 50/50 custody rotation.
- Interim orders limited Ott’s unsupervised custody (supervision, alcohol restrictions) and gave Runa primary physical and sole legal custody during the interim period.
- After a multi-day custody trial, the court awarded shared physical custody (50/50) and joint legal custody, with Runa having final decision-making when parents disagreed; the court found a domestic-violence history by Ott but that he had overcome the statutory presumption against custody.
- Runa filed a motion to relocate to Washington after trial but before the custody judgment issued; the first judge declined to address relocation in the custody ruling.
- A different judge held evidentiary hearings on relocation, found Runa’s move legitimate (not primarily intended to impede visitation), applied the AS 25.24.150(c) best-interests factors, and ordered Runa primary physical custody if she moved (with Ott summer custody blocks and shared legal custody maintained).
- Ott appealed, arguing the court misapplied the relocation legitimacy standard, failed to consider mixed motives, did not give proper deference to the original custody findings, and undervalued the child’s Anchorage extended-family ties.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ott) | Defendant's Argument (Runa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court applied the correct standard for legitimacy of the proposed relocation | Court misapplied standard by ignoring mixed motives and focusing only on primary motivation | Move was legitimate — not primarily motivated to limit visitation | Court applied correct legal standard and found Runa’s motivation legitimate |
| Whether the court improperly ignored or failed to evaluate secondary/illegitimate motives in best-interests analysis | Court failed to examine Runa’s possible secondary motive to limit Ott’s access | Court considered and rejected allegations of illegitimate motive; move based on new relationship, job prospects, and community ties | Court found record supported conclusion that Runa had no illegitimate motive and properly considered the issue |
| Whether the court failed to give substantial deference to the prior custody determination | Court impermissibly reweighed prior findings (capability/desire to meet child’s needs; willingness to foster relationship) | New relocation context requires reassessment; judge’s credibility findings justified preferring Runa on several factors | Court did not abuse discretion; deference observed but relocation inquiry legitimately compared parents under new circumstances |
| Whether the court failed to account for child’s Anchorage extended-family ties (stability/continuity) | Court undervalued the importance of the child’s family/community in Anchorage | Court considered extended-family evidence but found other stability and relational factors favored Runa | Court considered family ties and did not err in concluding the best-interests balance favored Runa |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017) (describing two-step relocation analysis and legitimacy threshold)
- Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011) (relocating parent gains primary custody by showing new environment better serves child)
- Eniero v. Brekke, 192 P.3d 147 (Alaska 2008) (discussion of motives for move and mixed-motives considerations)
- Gratrix v. Gratrix, 652 P.2d 76 (Alaska 1982) (trial court must give deference to original custody findings)
- Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018) (examples of illegitimate relocation motives: repeated plan changes and failure to provide move notice/contact information)
- Saffir v. Wheeler, 436 P.3d 1009 (Alaska 2019) (extended-family relationships may be considered under stability/continuity factor)
- Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 27 P.3d 314 (Alaska 2001) (legitimacy standard: move is legitimate if not primarily intended to impair visitation)