433 P.3d 1165
Alaska2018Background
- Parents divorced; 2014 custody order granted joint legal and physical custody but gave father (Scott) final say over educational and therapeutic needs and ordered children into therapy; both parents ordered to cooperate with therapy.
- Mother (Georgette) repeatedly resisted therapy: questioned therapists, disrupted scheduling/administration, conveyed negative attitudes to the children, and involved children in litigation issues.
- Counseling Solutions terminated therapy for the children after concluding parental conflict (largely attributable to mother) made treatment counterproductive; limited therapy options remained.
- After multiple warnings and earlier contempt findings, father moved to modify custody; a three-day trial (March 2017) produced testimony from therapists documenting mother’s interference and father’s consistent cooperation.
- Superior court found the children had a special need for psychotherapy, that mother’s conduct constituted a change in circumstances by sabotaging therapy, and that sole legal and physical custody to father with supervised visitation for mother (temporarily) was necessary to let therapy take hold; mother was allowed to seek unsupervised visitation upon professional certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Georgette) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying custody | Georgette: Her attitude toward therapy predated prior order; facts did not amount to a new substantial change | Scott: Mother’s continued, escalating interference with therapy and loss of counseling resources constituted changed circumstances | Court: Found continued, repetitious interference amounted to a change in circumstances; modification justified |
| Whether modifying custody was in the children’s best interests | Georgette: She can better meet children’s physical/emotional needs and children prefer her; academics improved | Scott: Children’s predominant need was psychotherapy and mother was incapable of supporting it; father cooperated with treatment | Court: Best interests favored father because children had special therapy needs and mother disrupted treatment |
| Whether limiting mother to supervised visitation was proper | Georgette: Supervised visitation is disfavored and requires specific findings showing harm from unsupervised contact | Scott: Supervision was necessary to prevent further sabotage of therapy and to allow therapeutic relationship to form | Court: Supervised visitation appropriate; court explained risk of sabotage and provided a path to unsupervised visitation upon professional certification |
| Adequacy of remedial path to restore unsupervised visitation | Georgette: (argues restrictions unjustified) | Scott: Recommends psychological evaluation and compliance with recommendations to regain access | Court: Required mother obtain psychological evaluation and certification from a professional in high-conflict parenting before unsupervised visitation would be restored |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (recognizing modification requires change in circumstances)
- Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478 (standards for reviewing change-in-circumstances determinations)
- Collier v. Harris, 261 P.3d 397 (ongoing, repetitious violations can justify modification)
- J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409 (supervised visitation requires findings on how unsupervised contact would harm child)
- Monette v. Hoff, 958 P.2d 434 (preference for plan to regain unsupervised visitation)
- Matthew P. v. Gail S., 354 P.3d 1044 (approving conditional restoration of visitation after therapeutic progress)