Mallory D. v. Malcolm D.
290 P.3d 1194
Alaska2012Background
- Malcolm D. and Mallory D. filed for dissolution in August 2009; they had three children: Jason, Brooke, and Megan.
- They initially shared joint legal custody and alternate-week physical custody.
- In May 2010 Mallory sought modification to sole legal and primary physical custody of Brooke and Megan, and more visitation with Jason.
- The superior court found a change in circumstances for Brooke and Megan but denied custody modification; it found both parents had two acts of domestic violence.
- Both parents were found to have a history of domestic violence, with the court concluding neither was more likely to perpetrate future violence, so the presumption in AS 25.24.150(g) did not apply.
- Mallory appeals, challenging the court’s factual findings, its weighing of best interests, and its handling of the domestic violence presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the presumption in AS 25.24.150(g) applies when both parents have a history of domestic violence and neither is more likely to continue violence. | Mallory contends the presumption should apply against Malcolm. | Malcolm argues the presumption does not apply since violence is equal and not likely to recur. | Presumption does not apply; court may weigh remaining best-interests factors. |
| Whether the superior court’s factual findings about domestic violence were clearly erroneous. | Mallory asserts more acts occurred and credibility issues favor her. | Court appropriately weighed conflicting evidence and credibility. | No clear error; findings supported by record and credibility determinations. |
| Whether the court properly weighed AS 25.24.150(c) best-interests factors. | Mallory claims unequal ability to meet needs and favors continuity with mother. | Court found both parents equally capable and weighed factors including Brooke’s preference and continuity. | Court did not clearly err; there is discretionary support for the custody decision. |
| Whether reliance on the custody investigator’s report was appropriate. | Mallory argues the report was limited in scope. | Court properly considered the report under Alaska procedural rules. | Proper for the court to rely on the custody investigator’s findings. |
| Whether the standard of review and legal framework applied were correct. | Mallory challenges the application of the correct legal standards. | The court applied correct breadth of discretion and standard of review for custody determinations. | Standard of review and standard of discretion correctly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cusack v. Cusack, 202 P.3d 1156 (Alaska 2009) (parental custody in domestic violence context; credibility evaluative framework)
- Sheffield v. Sheffield, 265 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2011) (custody factors and deference to trial court findings)
- Millette v. Millette, 177 P.3d 258 (Alaska 2008) (custody decisions; standard of review)
- McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1995) (weighing best-interests factors; credibility assessment)
- Blanton v. Yourkowski, 180 P.3d 948 (Alaska 2008) (domestic violence considerations in custody)