William P. v. Taunya P., 258 P.3d 812

Bill and Taunya P. married Feb 14, 1998; two sons born 1998 and 2000; divorced Dec 29, 2008 with shared custody; Taunya moved to North Dakota in Aug 2009, Bill to Alaska.
Taunya sought sole legal custody Sept 18, 2009, alleging communication barriers, restricted contact, and failure to seek medical care; Bill sought sole custody claiming Taunya’s erratic behavior.
There were disputed communications issues, including Taunya allegedly disconnecting telephone lines at 9:00 p.m. and Taunya opposing a webcam system; Bill produced many emails claiming he supported contact.
A custody investigator (appointed Dec 11, 2009) reported high conflict, noted both parents’ faults, and recommended custody by school year with Bill and summers with Taunya, plus using a third party for communications.
Superior Court held Jul 20–22, 2010 that Taunya should have sole custody due to noncooperation and to reduce Bill’s visitation; ordered Christmas and summer visitation limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly weighed best interests in modifying custody	Bill contends court erred by not adequately weighing factors	Taunya argues court correctly prioritized stability and noncooperation	Yes; court’s factual findings supported sole custody to Taunya and proper consideration of factors.
Whether AS 25.24.150(c) factors supported Taunya’s sole custody	Bill claims Taunya not shown capable of meeting needs	Taunya showed track record and emotional support for children	Yes; findings on emotional/physical needs and continuity favored Taunya.
Whether children's preference was properly considered	Bill notes children favored father per investigator	Court found children not old enough to form a reliable preference	Yes; court appropriately discounted current preference due to age/capacity.
Whether visitation reduction was supported by record	Bill argues reduction unsupported	Taunya argues reduction necessary to limit harm to children	Yes; court justified reduction pending future assessment; allowed revisit as circumstances change.

Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478 (Alaska 1994) (custody decisions may depart from investigator recommendations; overall record controls)
Valentino v. Cote, 3 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2000) (substantial reliance on mature child’s preference when appropriate)
Lone Wolf v. Lone Wolf, 741 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1987) (visitation rights can be restricted only with proper findings)
Silvan v. Alcina, 105 P.3d 117 (Alaska 2005) (great distance affects weight of preserving parent–child relationship)
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005) (custody decisions—evaluation of evidence; not bound to adopt investigator’s recommendation)