Moore v. Moore
349 P.3d 1076
Alaska2015Background
- Brandy and Jeremy Moore divorced in 2014; Brandy awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of their daughter; Jeremy awarded liberal visitation including overseas travel.
- Jeremy sought the option to take the child to Micronesia during visitation; Micronesia is not a Hague Convention signatory.
- Brandy requested travel be limited to Hague Convention countries and/or that security be required, citing a fear Jeremy might abscond and noting Jeremy’s prior Army disciplinary finding.
- The superior court denied travel restrictions, finding no evidence Jeremy intended to keep the child abroad and emphasizing the general benefits of travel.
- Brandy moved for reconsideration; the superior court again denied restrictions and Brandy appealed.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding Hague status is a factor but not dispositive and the trial court’s finding that Jeremy posed no flight risk was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing unrestricted international visitation | Trial court should limit foreign visitation to Hague Convention signatories (or require security) because non-signatory travel risks permanent loss of court jurisdiction and child abduction | Hague signatory status is pretext; Brandy objects due to resentment; travel is beneficial and Jeremy should be allowed to take the child where he lives or works | No abuse of discretion — Hague status is a relevant factor but not dispositive; trial court reasonably found no flight risk and considered alternatives |
| Whether a bright-line rule limiting travel to Hague countries is required | Such a rule is necessary to protect children and enforce custody orders | No statutory or case law requires a bright-line rule; courts should weigh multiple factors | No bright-line rule; courts may consider Hague status among many factors |
| Whether trial court should have required security (bond) or other assurances before foreign travel | Security should be required when travel includes non‑Hague countries to assure return | Security is discretionary and unnecessary absent a demonstrated risk of non-return | Security bonds are discretionary; not required where court finds no credible flight risk |
| Whether trial court failed to consider statutorily mandated best-interest factors | Failure to account for Hague and enforceability conflicts with child’s best interests | Court considered best-interest factors, travel benefits, and lack of evidence of intent to abscond | No failure — court considered key factors and its factual finding that father posed no risk was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Abouzahr v. Matera‑Abouzahr, 824 A.2d 268 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2003) (Hague membership is a major factor but not the only one; courts should weigh flight risk, parent integrity, reasons for travel, bonds)
- MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 922 A.2d 1252 (N.J. 2007) (Hague status and enforceability are pertinent but not dispositive; evaluate past compliance and flight risk)
- Patrawke v. Liebes, 285 P.3d 268 (Alaska 2012) (trial court abused discretion by denying passport where no compelling reason against travel was shown)
- In re Rix, 20 A.3d 326 (N.H. 2011) (permitting travel to non‑Hague country where no evidence of intent to abscond)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2010) (recognizes Hague Convention as an international remedy for wrongful retention/abduction)