Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 14

Background

Parents (Collier and Harris) share joint legal custody and a 50/50 physical schedule for their daughter, established by order and trial in 2007–2008.
Collier moved to modify custody in 2013 seeking sole legal and primary physical custody, alleging many life changes (marriage, new job, graduate school, new home) and claims about Harris (injury, job loss, schooling, remarriage) plus poor parental communication.
Collier also alleged her daughter reported sexual abuse after a camping trip while in Harris’s care; Collier sought a custody investigation, which the superior court denied.
After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the superior court found no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of legal or physical custody, denied Collier’s requested 5-5-2-2 schedule (but found some schedule change warranted), and awarded Harris 50% of his attorney’s fees.
On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed denial of custody modification and the attorney-fee award, but remanded for the superior court to perform a best-interests analysis concerning modification of the physical custody schedule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sustained noncooperation justifies terminating joint legal custody	Collier: ongoing poor communication between parents is a substantial change requiring sole legal custody	Harris: parties still communicate sufficiently for joint legal custody; evidence does not show inability to cooperate	Court: No abuse of discretion — record supports finding communication, while imperfect, was adequate to preserve joint legal custody
Whether aggregate life changes justify awarding primary physical custody to Collier	Collier: aggregate changes (parents’ employment, residence, marriages, daughter’s abuse) adversely affect child and justify sole physical custody	Harris: changes do not show diminished ability to parent; incidents were isolated and not shown to affect child’s welfare	Court: No abuse of discretion — changes in aggregate did not show substantial change affecting child’s welfare to modify physical custody
Whether court erred by not deciding best interests for Collier’s proposed new 5-5-2-2 schedule	Collier: three days of evidence sufficed to evaluate and adopt the proposed schedule as in child’s best interests	Harris: court correctly required more information about feasibility; some schedule change was appropriate but not necessarily Collier’s proposal	Court: Superior court abused discretion by failing to perform best-interests analysis for schedule modification; remand for that analysis (trial court may take further evidence)
Whether awarding Harris 50% of attorney’s fees was improper without a bad-faith finding	Collier: fee award functions as a penalty despite court finding no bad faith	Harris: statute permits fee awards after considering relative resources and good faith; award appropriate	Court: No abuse of discretion — court properly considered relative resources and good faith and reasonably awarded fees

Key Cases Cited

Collier v. Harris, 261 P.3d 397 (Alaska 2011) (standards for custody modification and review)
McLane v. Paul, 189 P.3d 1039 (Alaska 2008) (threshold substantial-change requirement protects stability)
Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478 (Alaska 2012) (use of AS 25.24.150(c) best-interest factors)
Hunter v. Conwell, 219 P.3d 191 (Alaska 2009) (statutory standard for custody modification)
T.M.C. v. S.A.C., 858 P.2d 315 (Alaska 1993) (sustained noncooperation may defeat joint custody)
Houston v. Wolpert, 332 P.3d 1279 (Alaska 2014) (joint legal custody may be denied when parents cannot communicate effectively)
Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009) (noncooperation can be a basis to terminate joint legal custody)
Long v. Long, 816 P.2d 145 (Alaska 1991) (aggregate consideration of multiple changes)
Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011) (certain changes, e.g., out-of-state moves, may be substantial as a matter of law)
Riggs v. Coonradt, 335 P.3d 1103 (Alaska 2014) (deference to trial court factual findings based on oral testimony)
S.L. v. J.H., 883 P.2d 984 (Alaska 1994) (consideration of relative financial resources and good faith for attorney-fee awards)
Morino v. Swayman, 970 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1999) (modifying visitation/custody requires change and best-interest showing)
Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2013) (lesser showing needed to modify visitation than custody)
House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204 (Alaska 1989) (pre-AS 25.20.115 standard on fee awards; historical reference)