Nelson v. Nelson, 2011 Alas. LEXIS 113

Justin and Erica Nelson divorced in 2008; parenting agreement incorporated into the divorce decree provided shared legal custody and equal physical custody near Fairbanks.
The agreement anticipated one parent moving from Fairbanks and set interim school-year custody with the nonmoving parent; a later separate agreement would govern post-relocation arrangements.
In 2009 Erica proposed moving with both children to Iowa; the superior court denied modification; Justin later moved for modification in 2009, anticipating possible relocation due to military service.
A custody investigator (Sponsel) was appointed; Sponsel recommended that custody shift to Justin if one parent moved, with Erica custody during deployments over three months.
The superior court denied modification, citing no change in circumstances, but ordered a school-year plan if Justin moved and a custody-investigation-cost issue remained unresolved.
On appeal, Justin argues lack of best-interests analysis, misinterpretation of the agreement, and failure to address custody-investigator fees; Erica counters that the court correctly applied best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Has there been a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification?	Nelson: anticipated move constitutes change.	Nelson: agreement anticipated move; no change.	There is a substantial change; remand for best-interests analysis.
Must the court perform a full best-interests inquiry before modifying custody?	Nelson: best interests were not independently analyzed.	Nelson: order reflects modification based on agreement and move.	Yes; remand for a full best-interests determination.
Does the Parenting Agreement dictate post-relocation custody without new analysis?	Nelson: the agreement controls interim custody.	Nelson: agreement should be enforced only with independent best-interests review.	No; requires independent best-interests analysis; vacate and remand.
Who pays the custody-investigator costs?	Nelson: allocation should be decided on remand.	Nelson: not addressed; trial court should decide.	Remand to decide allocation of investigation costs.

Brown v. Brown, 983 P.2d 1264 (Alaska 1999) (independent custody-decision principles; standard for interpreting agreements incorporated by decree)
McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1995) (custody modification standards; consideration of cooperation and stability)
Melendrez v. Melendrez, 143 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2006) (change in circumstances supported by relocation of both parents)
Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (change-of-circumstances when custodial parent moves out of state)
Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009) (anchoring best-interests factors and changed circumstances in custody decisions)
Crane v. Crane, 986 P.2d 881 (Alaska 1999) (custody determinations must be based on best interests; discretion in applying factors)