Mendel-Gleason v. Harris
2011 Alas. LEXIS 93
Alaska2011Background
- Branwen Collier and William Harris, parents of Zada, separated in 2006 and contested custody.
- Settlement conferences in 2007 produced agreements on many issues and a shared physical custody schedule; legal custody remained unresolved.
- February 2008 partial custody order memorialized physical custody terms; legal custody to be decided at trial scheduled for 2008.
- October 2008 trial awarded joint legal custody with specific communication requirements; Branwen’s August 2008 motion to appoint a custody investigator was denied.
- Branwen filed January 27, 2009 to modify legal and physical custody based on changed circumstances; the superior court denied without a hearing and awarded attorney’s fees to Harris.
- Branwen’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied; this appeal followed, challenging both custody modification and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a modification hearing for joint legal custody | Branwen argues substantial changed circumstances justify a hearing. | Harris contends no substantial change justifies a hearing at that time. | No hearing for legal custody modification affirmed |
| Whether Branwen showed a substantial change in circumstances to modify joint legal custody | Branwen claims communication issues and Will’s noncompliance indicate change. | Will contends communication already functioned and alleged noncompliance did not amount to change. | Insufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of legal custody |
| Whether Branwen showed a substantial change in circumstances to modify shared physical custody | Branwen argues her post-graduation work/school schedule reduced her time with Zada. | Will argues unilateral schedule changes do not justify altering custody without more. | No hearing warranted to modify percentage of physical custody time |
| Whether the award of attorney's fees under AS 25.20.115 was proper | Branwen contends the court failed to make explicit financial-resource and good-faith findings | Will maintains fees were appropriate given Branwen’s motions. | Fee award vacated for lack of explicit findings and due process issue; remand for proper analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424 (Alaska 2001) (requires explicit financial and good-faith findings under AS 25.20.115)
- C.R.B. v. C.C., 959 P.2d 375 (Alaska 1998) (summary-judgment-like analysis; credibility not weighed on a bare motion denial)
- Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009) (non-compliance alone may not constitute substantial change; enforcement options preferred)
- Iverson v. Griffith, 180 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2008) (unilateral changes can justify modification if substantial enough)
- Havel v. Havel, 216 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009) (visitation vs. custody distinction; substantial change required for percentage shift)