Riggs v. Coonradt, 2014 Alas. LEXIS 206

Kelli Riggs and Eric Coonradt, twice-married/divorced, share three children under an existing joint legal custody arrangement with alternating two-week physical custody and Wednesday dinners.
After ongoing conflict (disputes over child support, allegations of abuse, DUI arrest), Eric moved in 2011 for primary physical and sole legal custody; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed in 2012.
A two-day evidentiary hearing occurred in January 2013; the superior court found a complete breakdown in parental communication and modified custody.
The court awarded sole legal custody to Eric and shifted physical custody so children lived primarily with Eric during the school year and with Kelli during most of the summer.
The court directed Eric’s counsel to draft the written decree; a revised draft extended Eric’s summer weekend returns to Monday mornings — a change Kelli’s new counsel objected to after filing; the court signed the revised decree without addressing the change.
Kelli appealed, challenging modification grounds, the sole legal custody award, allocation of 20% of GAL fees to her, and the unaddressed scrivener change extending Eric’s summer weekend visits.

Issue	Riggs' Argument	Coonradt's Argument	Held
Whether a material change in circumstances justified modifying custody	Eric failed to prove traditional grounds; no substantive change in academics or substantiated abuse	Parents’ persistent inability to communicate made joint custody impracticable	Court may rely on sustained breakdown in parental communication as a sufficient change; modification affirmed
Whether awarding sole legal custody to Eric was an abuse of discretion	Kelli asserted Eric would withhold information and argued her greater daytime availability favored her	Court found Eric better recognized children’s educational/emotional needs and less likely to weaponize custody	Court’s factual findings supported award of sole legal custody; no abuse of discretion
Whether allocating 20% of GAL fees to Kelli was improper	Kelli argued Eric requested the GAL and agreed to pay retainer; she could not afford the fees	Court considered relative incomes and rule allowing deviation from equal sharing for good cause	Allocation within court’s discretion given income disparity and finding of good cause
Whether the substitution of Monday-morning returns for summer weekends in the drafted decree was permissible	Kelli argued the change departed from oral decree and was a substantive, unexplained alteration	Coonradt relied on the drafted decree as reflecting intended terms	Court remanded for superior court to expressly adopt or reject the scrivener’s change to visitation timing

Frackman v. Enzor, 327 P.3d 878 (Alaska 2014) (standards for reviewing modification of custody)
Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013) (parental cooperation and custody considerations)
Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009) (deference to trial court on custody findings)
T.M.C. v. S.A.C., 858 P.2d 315 (Alaska 1993) (sustained non-cooperation can justify reopening custody)
Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, 643 P.2d 985 (Alaska 1982) (appointment and fee allocation for guardian ad litem)
H.P.A. v. S.C.A., 704 P.2d 205 (Alaska 1985) (allocation of GAL costs and parents’ ability to pay)
McDougall v. Lumpkin, 11 P.3d 990 (Alaska 2000) (duty of drafting counsel to faithfully memorialize court’s oral findings)
Ogden v. Ogden, 39 P.3d 513 (Alaska 2001) (limitations on including new matter in written findings without notice)