Houston v. Wolpert, 332 P.3d 1279

Gary Houston and Meredith Wolpert dissolved their marriage in April 2010 with Meredith awarded primary custody and Gary granted open and liberal visitation.
Meredith moved to Soldotna and restricted Gary’s visits to one weekend per month; even after Gary relocated closer, visitation remained limited.
Gary filed August 2012 motion to modify custody alleging Meredith unreasonably restricted visitation and sought interim and permanent relief.
A family court master heard interim visitation and recommended no custody modification at that time.
The superior court ultimately kept Meredith as primary custodian with a set visitation schedule and later denied Gary’s motion for attorney’s fees, remanding for findings on fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether stability factor favored mother was an abuse of discretion	Houston argues the court ignored Gary’s stable relationship with child	Wolpert contends continuity and stability favored keeping child with mother	No abuse; court properly weighed stability and continuity favors for mother.
Whether continuing relationship factor was properly weighed	Houston contends court gave insufficient weight to Gary’s ability to foster relationship	Wolpert argues court considered factors and found feasible visitation plan	No abuse; court’s findings supported facilitating Gary-child relationship.
Whether denial of joint legal custody was appropriate given communication issues	Houston asserts joint custody would be appropriate with better communication	Wolpert argues lack of cooperation supports sole legal custody	Not an abuse; record supports sole legal custody due to poor communication.
Whether the court erred by denying attorney’s fees without explicit findings	Houston claims fee denial lacked explanation and rationale	Wolpert contends fee issues relate to resources and good faith	Remanded for explicit fee findings; affirming other custody rulings.

Meier v. Cloud, 34 P.3d 1274 (Alaska 2001) (continuity and stability in relocation and custody)
Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478 (Alaska 1994) (stability/continuity assessed in total circumstances)
Blanton v. Yourkowski, 180 P.3d 948 (Alaska 2008) (primary caregiver status as a factor, not automatic custody preference)
McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1995) (relationship factors and stability considerations in custody)
Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478 (Alaska 1994) (continuity/totality of circumstances in best interests)
Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2005) (no automatic weight for single factor; must show which factors were important)
Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (custody decisions consider multiple factors including school and community ties)
Chesser v. Chesser-Witmer, 178 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2008) (stability and continuity guidance in evaluating custody)
Collier v. Harris, 261 P.3d 397 (Alaska 2011) (fee award analysis and explicit findings required)