Rego v. Rego
2011 Alas. LEXIS 76
Alaska2011Background
- Michael and Joanna Rego married in 2004 in Fairbanks; their son Dante was born in 2006.
- Post-divorce, the parties had a shared custody arrangement with a 70/30 schedule and a relocation clause requiring 180 days’ notice prior to moving from the Fairbanks area.
- Michael lost his Alaska job in December 2008 and sought to relocate Dante to New Jersey for employment opportunities; he filed a motion for primary custody and relocation in March 2009.
- A custody investigator recommended symmetric consideration of Dante’s life with each parent, and proposed different custody arrangements depending on whether Michael stayed in Fairbanks or moved to New Jersey.
- The superior court conducted a three-day trial in September 2009, found Michael’s move to New Jersey legitimate, and awarded Joanna primary physical custody if Michael moved; it otherwise retained the pre-modification arrangement, and later denied interim custody relief when Michael remained in Fairbanks.
- Michael appeals, arguing the court erred in conditioning custody on the relocation and in weighing best-interest factors; the Alaska Supreme Court affirms, applying the Moeller-Prokosch framework and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was relocation treated under correct legal standard? | Rego contends the court properly assumed the move and conducted symmetric analysis. | Rego argues the court weighed the move appropriately and did not disfavor relocation. | Yes; court applied correct standards and symmetry in evaluating the move. |
| Did court abuse discretion by emphasizing sibling ties over other needs? | Rego claims the court overemphasized half-sisters and stability while undervaluing other needs. | Rego asserts the court balanced factors appropriately given the record. | No; findings supported by record and no abuse of discretion. |
| Did the court err in considering evidence of domestic violence, abuse, neglect, or substance abuse? | Rego argues the court ignored or inadequately weighed these concerns. | Rego argues the court properly limited inquiry per AS 25.24.150(d) and considered relevant factors. | No; court complied with statutory limits and appropriately weighed evidence. |
| Was Joanna's greater willingness and ability to facilitate the other-parent relationship properly found? | Rego argues the court mischaracterized or undervalued Michael’s efforts to engage Dante with Joanna. | Rego asserts the court reasonably weighed testimony showing Joanna’s greater facilitation. | Yes; finding supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous. |
| Did the court properly perform the best-interests analysis given the relocation context? | Rego contends the court failed to give due consideration to the impact of relocation on Dante’s stability and relationships. | Rego contends the court adequately weighed stability, relationships, and future environment. | Yes; the court conducted a thorough best-interests analysis with proper statutory guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendrez v. Melendrez, 143 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2006) (supports reviewing the impact of move on child and that relocation itself isn’t per se disqualifying)
- Moeller-Prokosch I, 27 P.3d 314 (Alaska 2001) (move should not be held against relocating parent; symmetric analysis advised)
- Moeller-Prokosch II, 53 P.3d 152 (Alaska 2002) (directed symmetric consideration of consequences to child if move occurs)
- Moeller-Prokosch III, 99 P.3d 531 (Alaska 2004) (emphasized assessing move impact on child in best-interests framework)
- Barrett v. Alguire, 35 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) (custody based on best interests with consideration of move impact)
- McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1995) (discussion of de novo-like review when one parent seeks to move with child)
- West v. Lawson, 951 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1998) (stability and continuity considerations in custody decisions after relocation)
- S.N.E. v. R.L.B., 699 P.2d 875 (Alaska 1985) (nexus requirement between parent's conduct and parent-child relationship)
- Meier v. Cloud, 34 P.3d 1274 (Alaska 2001) (balancing geographic and relational stability in relocation cases)
- Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005) (affirming custody based on reasonable weighing of evidence)