Laura B. v. Wade B.
424 P.3d 315
Alaska2018Background
- Parents (Laura and Wade) shared joint legal custody and week-on/week-off physical custody of their minor daughter since 2013.
- In April 2017 Wade moved for full legal and physical custody, alleging the daughter wanted to live with him and that Laura left the daughter alone and afraid at night.
- The superior court held an initial hearing, found the factual dispute unresolved, and ordered a limited custody investigation; the court told parties a second hearing on the child’s best interests would follow if the investigator found the child was being left alone and afraid.
- The custody investigator reported the daughter wanted to live with Wade, was left alone at night and was scared, and made other observations; the investigator was available to testify under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.6(d)(2).
- Without holding the promised second evidentiary hearing on best interests, the superior court accepted the investigator’s report and modified physical custody, awarding Wade primary physical custody.
- Laura appealed solely on due process grounds, arguing the court denied her an adequate opportunity to contest the investigator’s findings and to present evidence on the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laura) | Defendant's Argument (Wade) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated due process by modifying custody without a second hearing | Court promised a second hearing; denying it prevented her from challenging investigator and presenting evidence on best interests | Initial hearing under oath plus investigator report sufficed; investigator corroborated Wade’s claims | Vacated modification: court violated due process by entering material custody change without the required second evidentiary hearing |
| Whether a hearing was required before granting a material custody change | Modification from shared to primary custody is material and requires evidentiary hearing when opposed | (Same as defendant’s first argument) | Court reaffirmed rule that opposed, material custody modifications require an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the initial hearing cured the lack of a later hearing | Initial hearing did not address child’s best interests; parties were directed not to present such evidence pending investigation | Wade contended initial sworn testimony and investigator’s corroboration were sufficient | Initial hearing insufficient because the court explicitly reserved best-interests determination for a follow-up evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the custody-investigator report could substitute for a hearing | Investigator’s report alone deprived Laura of chance to cross-examine, call witnesses, or rebut credibility findings | Wade argued the report corroborated his claims and justified the order | Investigator’s report cannot substitute for an evidentiary hearing when a material custody change is at issue and the nonmoving parent opposes it |
Key Cases Cited
- Debra P. v. Laurence S., 309 P.3d 1258 (Alaska 2013) (due-process requirement of adequate hearing in custody cases)
- Lashbrook v. Lashbrook, 957 P.2d 326 (Alaska 1998) (notice and hearing standards in custody proceedings)
- Cushing v. Painter, 666 P.2d 1044 (Alaska 1983) (need to afford parties opportunity to present evidence in custody disputes)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 129 P.3d 449 (Alaska 2006) (exception for minor custody modifications)
- D.D. v. L.A.H., 27 P.3d 757 (Alaska 2001) (opposed custody modifications require evidentiary hearing)
- A.H. v. P.B., 2 P.3d 627 (Alaska 2000) (material visitation or custody changes should not occur without allowing parties to be heard)
- Walker v. Walker, 960 P.2d 620 (Alaska 1998) (court erred in modifying custody without an evidentiary hearing)
- Abby D. v. Sue Y., 378 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2016) (best-interests determination is a separate step after finding change in circumstances)