Sharyl W. v. William D., S19539

Sharyl W. and William D. divorced in 2014 and originally shared physical and legal custody of their two teenage children. 1
After disputes over their son’s education, the superior court in 2024 modified legal custody and gave Sharyl final decision-making authority if the parents disagreed. 2
In 2025 William moved to modify physical custody after the son began acting out, running away, and wanting to live with him. 3
At the court-ordered interview, the 13-year-old said it would be best to live with his father for a while and continue regular contact with his mother. 4
At the evidentiary hearing, both parents described escalating conflict, the son’s misconduct, and a December 2024 physical altercation that Sharyl characterized as assault and domestic violence. 5
The superior court found a substantial change in circumstances, awarded William primary physical custody, and limited Sharyl to Saturday visitation with flexible holiday arrangements. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantial change in circumstances 7	Sharyl said no qualifying change justified modification.	William said domestic violence and escalating conflict changed circumstances.	Domestic violence established a substantial change. 8
Consideration of domestic violence evidence 9	Sharyl said the court ignored William’s abusive conduct.	William said her allegations were not statutorily defined domestic violence.	The court properly declined to treat litigation abuse as domestic violence. 10
Use of hearsay and party admissions 11	Sharyl said the custody ruling relied on inadmissible hearsay.	William said the evidence was mostly live testimony and Sharyl’s admissions.	No reversible hearsay error occurred; admissions were admissible. 12
Weight given to child’s preference 13	Sharyl said the son’s preference should not control custody.	William said the 13-year-old’s preference was thoughtful and uncoached.	The court could give the son’s preference weight. 14
Best interests determination 15	Sharyl said primary custody with William was not in the son’s best interests.	William said the son was unsafe and more stable with him.	Primary custody with William was not an abuse of discretion. 16

Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107 (Alaska 2002) (trial court has broad discretion in child custody decisions 17)
Collier v. Harris, 377 P.3d 15 (Alaska 2016) (abuse-of-discretion and clearly erroneous standards in custody cases 18)
Yelena R. v. George R., 326 P.3d 989 (Alaska 2014) (abuse of discretion includes ignoring mandated factors or weighting them improperly 19)
William P. v. Taunya P., 258 P.3d 812 (Alaska 2011) (clear-error standard for factual findings 20)
Kristina B. v. Edward B., 329 P.3d 202 (Alaska 2014) (deference is owed to credibility findings based on oral testimony 21)
Adam F. v. Caitlin B., 551 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2024) (domestic violence is a per se change in circumstances 22)
Bruce H. v. Jennifer L., 407 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2017) (crime of domestic violence is a substantial change of circumstances as a matter of law 23)
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010) (court determines best interests after qualifying change in circumstances 24)
Heather W. v. Rudy R., 274 P.3d 478 (Alaska 2012) (best-interests analysis follows statutory factors 25)
Sarah D. v. John D., 352 P.3d 419 (Alaska 2015) (detailed findings on domestic violence are required 26)
Oscar M. v. Marilyn P., 555 P.3d 40 (Alaska 2024) (court may obtain a child’s preference through a court professional interview 27)
Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2007) (trial court has discretion to decide whether a child can form a trustworthy preference 28)