Wells v. Barile, 358 P.3d 583

Background

Tammy Wells and Primo Barile are ex-spouses with a son born in 1997; a 2009 custody order provided 50/50 shared physical custody, required sharing of PFDs equally, and required parents to split reasonable uninsured health-care costs up to $5,000/year.
Tammy later divorced Lance Wells; in interim proceedings in that divorce a judge expressed concerns about Tammy’s emotional stability and ordered supervised visitation in that case.
Primo moved in 2013 to modify the 2009 custody order, seeking sole legal and primary physical custody; he also sought enforcement of the PFD split (but not child support). Tammy opposed and said she had used the PFDs toward braces she arranged for their son.
After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court awarded Primo sole legal and primary physical custody, limited Tammy’s visitation, issued a tentative child support order, and ordered Tammy to reimburse Primo half the child’s PFDs for 2010–2013; a writ of assistance was issued to enforce custody.
On show-cause the court entered judgment for Primo for $2,407.44 (half the PFDs plus interest). Tammy appealed, raising challenges to the custody modification, child support, PFD reimbursement, writ of assistance, judicial bias, and pro se treatment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wells)	Defendant's Argument (Barile)	Held
Whether superior court erred in modifying custody	Tammy: no substantial change in circumstances; court improperly relied on findings from separate interim proceedings and gave insufficient weight to child’s preference	Primo: Tammy’s emotional instability, travel to Costa Rica while child on probation, and child’s academic decline constituted substantial change; child’s preference not dispositive	Court affirmed modification: sufficient changed circumstances and best interests supported award to Primo; child’s preference given limited weight
Whether ordering child support was improper because not requested	Tammy: Primo didn’t request support, so court should not have imposed it	Primo: change from 50/50 to primary custody ordinarily requires new support determination	Court affirmed: entry of tentative support and requests for income info were proper under Rule 90.3 when custody changed
Whether court erred ordering Tammy to reimburse Primo for half the PFDs (2010–2013)	Tammy: she used PFDs toward son’s braces per the 2009 order splitting uninsured medical costs; she offset what Primo owed her	Primo: 2009 order required direct splitting of PFDs; Tammy acted unilaterally and shouldn’t keep his half	Court reversed reimbursement judgment and remanded: superior court abused discretion by denying offset analysis — must determine reasonable orthodontic expense and offset Primo’s obligation before entering money judgment
Whether writ of assistance and related findings were improper	Tammy: writ mischaracterized child as runaway and accused her falsely	Primo: writ appropriate to enforce custody given alleged interference	Court: moot (child reached majority); no relief available, so issue dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Graham R. v. Jane S., 334 P.3d 688 (Alaska 2014) (standard for modifying custody and best-interests inquiry)
Martin v. Martin, 303 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody factors)
Thomas v. Thomas, 171 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2007) (treatment of child’s custody preference)
Swaney v. Granger, 297 P.3d 132 (Alaska 2013) (change in physical custody ordinarily requires child support recalculation)
Lawson v. Lawson, 108 P.3d 883 (Alaska 2005) (upholding Rule 90.3 against certain constitutional challenges)
Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (standards for leniency toward pro se litigants)
Peter A. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991 (Alaska 2006) (mootness and case-or-controversy discussion)
Jacob v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 177 P.3d 1181 (Alaska 2008) (further discussion on mootness)