Frackman v. Enzor
327 P.3d 878
Alaska2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2005; the superior court originally awarded shared physical and legal custody of two sons (born 1999 and 2004).
- Paula (mother) has longstanding bipolar disorder, personality disorder traits, and a history of substance (alcohol/cocaine) problems; she intermittently refused medication and treatment.
- From 2011–2012 Rick (father) alleged Paula drank while caring for the children, physically disciplined them inappropriately, refused to follow court orders (EtG testing, food restrictions, passport cooperation), and falsified a food journal for the younger child.
- Court-ordered evaluations: psychologist Dr. Lazur diagnosed bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse and found denial/minimization; a custody investigator recommended primary physical and sole legal custody for Rick and professional supervision for visitation.
- After Paula missed/failed/terminated EtG testing and violated supervision rules, the court awarded Rick primary physical and sole legal custody and ordered professionally supervised visitation for Paula; Paula appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paula) | Defendant's Argument (Rick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to permit modifying custody | Court improperly re-litigated old allegations; no new change since 2006 denial | New evidence of renewed substance use, untreated bipolar disorder, incidents of abuse, and children’s declining school/behavior justified modification | Court: De novo review — substantial change found based on new evidence (substance abuse, mental health, abuse allegations) |
| Whether awarding primary physical and sole legal custody to Rick abused discretion | Award was unwarranted; court misweighed factors | Best-interests factors (needs, stability, substance abuse, mental health, prior impact on children) favored Rick | Court did not abuse discretion; it considered statutory factors and material evidence and found custody change in children’s best interests |
| Whether the court made adequate findings to impose professionally supervised visitation | Findings are insufficiently specific to justify supervision | Evidence of untreated complex mental illness, alcohol abuse, noncompliance with orders, strained parent-child relationship justified professional supervision | Findings were sufficient in context; supervised visitation supported by record (psych report, investigator, incidents) |
| Whether giving priority to Stewart’s baseball schedule over Sunday visitation was an abuse of discretion | Prioritizing sports over visitation unreasonably limits parental time | Stewart’s athletic opportunities were in his best interest; court allowed make-up visits and found pursuit reasonable | Not an abuse of discretion; court reasonably balanced child’s best interests with visitation rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Nelson, 263 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing whether there has been a material change in circumstances)
- Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (custody modification requires substantial change measured relative to prior order)
- Siekawitch v. Siekawitch, 956 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1998) (trial court must consider statutory best-interest factors)
- J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409 (Alaska 1996) (requirements for findings when ordering supervised visitation)
- Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9 (Alaska 2002) (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107 (Alaska 2002) (trial court’s broad discretion in custody determinations)
- Park v. Park, 986 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1999) (statutory list of factors relevant to child’s best interests)
- Helen S.K. v. Samuel M.K., 288 P.3d 463 (Alaska 2012) (accounting for child’s preferences and extracurriculars in custody determinations)