Green v. Parks
338 P.3d 312
Alaska2014Background
- Parents Jason Green (appellant) and Courtney Parks had a daughter in March 2013 and each filed for custody; Parks moved to Florida with the child shortly after filing.
- Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing; court found both impairments in communication and some controlling/demeaning conduct by Jason, but not domestic violence.
- Court awarded joint legal custody, gave Courtney primary physical custody, and granted her the “final say” if parents could not agree.
- Visitation: Jason was granted about 15 days per year in Florida; court ordered he not consume alcohol during visits or within eight hours beforehand.
- Child support order required Father to pay all visitation-related travel expenses; Jason (Coast Guard) has adjusted annual income ≈ $56,000, Courtney reported no income.
- Jason appealed custody allocation, the no-alcohol visitation condition, and the order that he pay all visitation travel expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Parks' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court abused discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Parks | Court failed to properly weigh AS 25.24.150(c) factors (homes moved, unannounced Florida move) and should favor Green | Court relied on stability of child’s Florida home, Parks’ support network, and Jason’s controlling behavior undermining his fitness | Affirmed — court did not clearly err; factors weighed slightly in favor of Parks |
| Whether prohibition on Green’s alcohol use before/during visits was supported | No substantial evidence of alcohol abuse; condition stigmatizes and lacks factual findings | Visitation order included condition for child’s welfare (court thought relevant) | Remand — insufficient findings; court must either vacate condition or make factual findings supporting it |
| Whether it was error to require Green to pay all visitation travel expenses | Unfair because Parks chose to move to Florida, creating travel burden on Green | Green has higher income; allocation permitted under Civil Rule 90.3(g) | Affirmed — allocation not an abuse of discretion under record |
| Whether trial court properly considered statutory best-interest factors overall | Green argues selective/inadequate consideration of certain AS 25.24.150(c) factors | Court considered relevant factors (stability, parental capability, communication) and made oral findings | Affirmed — reasoning adequate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mariscal v. Watkins, 914 P.2d 219 (Alaska 1996) (custody/visitation conditions must be supported by factual findings linking them to the child’s best interests)
- Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014) (appellate standard: defer to superior court custody determinations absent clear error or abuse of discretion)
- Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013) (court must allocate reasonable visitation travel expenses as just and proper)
- Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202 (Alaska 2014) (upholding unexplained allocation of all visitation expenses where record supported decision)
- Millette v. Millette, 177 P.3d 258 (Alaska 2008) (definition of clear error standard in family law appellate review)