408 P.3d 1196
Alaska2018Background
- Parents: Nickcole Moore (mother) and Forrest McGillis (father) divorced; they share a daughter (born 2007) and Nickcole’s son from a prior relationship (born 2004).
- 2011 divorce decree: shared legal custody of both children; Forrest awarded primary physical custody of the daughter (Ketchikan); Nickcole awarded primary physical custody of her son (living in Arizona). Court found Forrest was the boy’s psychological father and set split summer visitation.
- Biological father (Jeremy Thompson) of the son had been absent until his reappearance in 2015; he petitioned to intervene and to assume parental rights/responsibilities.
- Nickcole filed multiple motions to modify custody (2012, 2013, 2015) seeking primary custody of the daughter and termination of Forrest’s rights/visitation and legal custody of her son; alleged deteriorating living conditions, reduced contact, and domestic-violence allegations (found fabricated).
- At the 2015 hearing, a custody investigator recommended maintaining the status quo but suggested sole legal custody of the son to Nickcole and adjusted summer visitation; the court retained prior custody allocations for both children, adjusted summer schedule, warned about facilitating phone contact, and declared Forrest’s support obligation to the son terminated after Jeremy’s intervention.
- Appeal issues: whether the court abused discretion in denying modification for the daughter, whether Jeremy’s intervention is a change in circumstances as a matter of law for the son, and whether Forrest’s child support obligation terminated while he retained legal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (McGillis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changed circumstances justify modifying custody of the daughter | Forrest’s work schedule, living situation, and interference with phone contact are substantial changes harming the daughter | Changes are not materially affecting the daughter’s welfare; stability preserved; enforce phone-contact orders instead | Court did not abuse discretion; no substantial change as to the daughter; modification denied |
| Whether reappearance/intervention of the biological father is a change in circumstances for the son | Jeremy’s reappearance and increased contact with the son are a substantial change warranting custody re-evaluation | Characterized as manufactured by Nickcole; Forrest’s psychological-parent relationship persists | Reversed: intervention of previously absent biological parent is a change in circumstances as a matter of law; remand for best-interests analysis under AS 25.24.150(c) |
| Whether Forrest’s child support obligation terminated after Jeremy’s intervention | Forrest retained legal custody and psychological-parent status, so support obligation should continue despite biological father’s intervention | Jeremy’s intervention replaces parental obligations, so Forrest’s support obligation effectively ceased | Reversed: legal custody/psychological-parent status imposes support duty while custody retained; remand to address support consistent with any revised custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (defines "psychological parent")
- Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 15 (Alaska 2016) (standards for modification: substantial change and best-interests analysis)
- Acevedo v. Liberty, 956 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1998) (moving out of state is a change in circumstances as a matter of law)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 44 P.3d 153 (Alaska 2002) (biological father's duty of support arises at birth)
- C.R.B. v. C.C., 959 P.2d 375 (Alaska 1998) (party with legal custody has an obligation to support the child)