Jayda Roman v. Cleveland Karren, 461 P.3d 1252

Background:

Child born March 2012; lived in Washington, D.C., then Mount Vernon, WA, then Anchorage from April 2013; parents later lived in different states (father moved to WA and then D.C.).
Jayda filed a dissolution petition in Anchorage in May 2015 raising custody; the proceeding continued (converted to divorce) and Alaska exercised jurisdiction initially.
A November 2015 custody/support order was entered then set aside under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of proper notice; later filings (June 2016 divorce complaint) and moves prompted a jurisdictional dispute with Washington.
The Alaska court and a Washington court conferred; Alaska concluded it had initial and continuing UCCJEA jurisdiction and declined to transfer on inconvenient-forum grounds given extensive prior litigation and an imminent custody trial.
A Washington-based custody investigator initially recommended mother but later (at trial) recommended father due to escalating parental interference/alienation by mother and her partner; the superior court awarded primary physical custody to father and joint legal custody (tie-breaker to father).
Jayda appealed, arguing Alaska lacked UCCJEA subject-matter jurisdiction or should have declined jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum, and that the court abused its discretion in relying on and weighting the custody investigator and in applying best-interests factors.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jayda)	Defendant's Argument (Karren)	Held
1) Did Alaska have initial UCCJEA jurisdiction?	June 2016 complaint commenced a new proceeding; by then child lived in WA so Alaska lacked home-state jurisdiction.	The child’s custody proceeding commenced in May 2015 (dissolution petition); Alaska was the child’s home state then, so jurisdiction attached.	Held: Alaska had initial jurisdiction because the custody proceeding commenced in May 2015 when the dissolution petition was filed and the child had been domiciled in Alaska for the prior six months.
2) Should Alaska have declined jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum?	Alaska was now an inconvenient forum because the child, witnesses, and evidence were in Washington; transfer was more appropriate.	Alaska properly considered statutory factors, prior litigation, and imminent trial; transfer would cause long delay and expense.	Held: No abuse of discretion — the superior court considered statutory factors and reasonably retained jurisdiction.
3) Did the court abuse discretion by giving excessive weight to the custody investigator’s trial testimony?	Investigator’s reports favored mother earlier; trial testimony flip was inconsistent and was given undue weight.	Investigator explained changed recommendation based on intervening conduct; investigator is an expert witness whose trial testimony may be weighed.	Held: No abuse — trial testimony was consistent in substance with reports and court permissibly weighed the investigator’s updated opinion.
4) Did the court misapply best-interests factors (esp. continuity and impact of removing child from primary caretaker)?	Court undervalued continuity and harms of removing child from mother with whom she’d lived almost exclusively.	Court considered all statutory factors and reasonably found mother’s interference with father’s relationship made continuity less determinative.	Held: No abuse — court addressed statutory factors, focused on most relevant (continuity and facilitation of relationship), and reasonably awarded custody to father.

Key Cases Cited

B.J. v. J.D., 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997) (de novo review of UCCJEA jurisdictional questions)
Steven D. v. Nicole J., 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013) (standard of review for inconvenient-forum decisions)
Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P.2d 14 (Alaska 1982) (requiring statement of reasons when denying inconvenient-forum motion under predecessor statute)
Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008) (inconvenient-forum analysis not a best-interests inquiry)
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017) (review of discretionary rulings for clear unreasonableness)
Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller I), 27 P.3d 314 (Alaska 2001) (framework for moves tied to custody determinations)
Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch (Moeller III), 99 P.3d 531 (Alaska 2004) (clarifying symmetric consideration when move framework applies)
Pingree v. Cossette, 424 P.3d 371 (Alaska 2018) (Moeller framework inapplicable when parents already live in separate locations at hearing)
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005) (role and weight of custody-investigator testimony)