Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150

Section 25.24.150(c) lists factors for determining a child’s best interests; an initial custody order need not expressly address each factor when the record supports the best-interests finding.

McClain v. McClain · filed 1986-04-04(c)

While the superior court did not specifically address the factors in AS 25.24.150(c), it did consider the best interests of the child. The court found that both parties were fit and proper persons for the custody of Wendy. The court also concluded that the child custody agreement should be adopted as the final custody order because it met the best interests of the child.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to address relevant custody factors where applicable, but does not require separate findings on every factor.

McDanold v. McDanold · filed 1986-05-09(c)

There we implicitly recognized that each specific factor did not have to be addressed. Instead the trial court could consider all the relevant circumstances including the demeanor of the witnesses and conflicting testimony. ... However, the trial court should specifically address all relevant statutory factors where applicable.

Section 25.24.150 sets out factors the court must weigh in a child custody decision.

Kessler v. Kessler · filed 1992-03-20

Here, there was no abuse of discretion. The trial court properly weighed the statutory factors set forth in AS 25.24.150 (1991) and resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of the appellee.

Section 25.24.150(c)(6) requires consideration of each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent; oral findings can address that factor when the basis for the custody decision is clear from the record.

Duffus v. Duffus · filed 1997-02-28(c)(6)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)(6) directs the court to consider “the desire and ability of each parent to allow an open and loving frequent relationsMp between the child and the other parent.” ... Taken together, the court’s oral findings, as effectuated by its written order, are adequate to address the statutory factor and clarify the basis for the court’s decision on this issue.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider pertinent custody factors but does not require express findings on every factor.

Virgin v. Virgin · filed 1999-11-05(c)

This court has never held that Rule 52(a) requires explicit findings for each of the statutory factors in AS 25.24.150(c). On the contrary, we have consistently stated that courts need not memorialize their findings for each given factor.

Section 25.24.150(c) directs courts to weigh the listed best interests factors without allowing one factor to outweigh all the others.

In re J.J.J. · filed 1986-05-09(c)

In AS 25.24.150(c) the legislature has set forth statutory standards to guide the trial courts in the difficult determination of a child’s best interests in custody disputes. ... Although the probate master correctly considered the boy’s curiosity about his long-absent biological father, this single factor is far outweighed by other significant factors and thus does not justify the master’s finding that the adoption would not be in the boy’s best interests. We have repeatedly stated that in analyzing the best interests of a child, no single factor should be allowed to outweigh all others.

Section 25.24.150(c) directs courts to consider multiple factors when determining a child's best interests; no single factor should outweigh all others.

Matter of JJJ · filed 1986-06-26(c)

In AS 25.24.150(c) the legislature has set forth statutory standards to guide the trial courts in the difficult determination of a child's best interests in custody disputes. ... Although the probate master correctly considered the boy's curiosity about his long-absent biological father, this single factor is far outweighed by other significant factors and thus does not justify the master's finding that the adoption would not be in the boy's best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c) permits a court to consider a custody investigator’s report when evaluating a child’s emotional needs and to give less weight to a child’s preference when the child is too young for it to control.

House v. House · filed 1989-09-08(c)

Ms. House did mention that Diana had expressed a desire to live with her mother, but the court could have concluded that she was too young for her opinion to be controlling. Patricia has made no showing that the court did not consider the children’s emotional needs. The custody investigator’s report clearly addresses this issue. The court properly considered this report in making an evaluation of the children’s emotional needs. ... Application of the statutory criteria in AS 25.24.150(c) to the facts in the record does not suggest a different result.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the listed best interests factors, but a court need not expressly discuss every factor when the record explains its omission or related findings address it.

Long v. Long · filed 1991-08-09(c)

The considerations in Judge Carlson’s best interests discussion directly address the mandatory factors in AS 25.24.-150, subsections (c)(l)-(3), (6) & (9). No evidence in the record implies that Judge Carlson should have discussed subsections (c)(7) & (8). Similarly, evidence in the record indicates that the children felt much love and affection for both parents. Thus, Judge Carlson’s failure to discuss subsection (c)(4) is comprehensible: the factor was neutral. The only factor Judge Carlson perhaps failed to address completely is the one in subsection (c)(5) (child’s length of time in stable, satisfactory environment and desirability of maintaining continuity). Even there, however, discussion of changed circumstances necessarily addressed the question of environment and found Regina’s household lacking. And arguably, Judge Carlson’s finding that Dennis made the “better role model” for the children addresses the question of the desirability of maintaining continuity. We conclude that Judge Carlson properly employed the mandatory factors of AS 25.24.150.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody determinations to follow the child’s best interests; the circumstances of a child’s care may require a hearing before custody is decided.

Harvick v. Harvick · filed 1992-04-03(c)

Both our case law and statutes require custody determinations to be in accordance with the best interests of the child. See Gratrix, 652 P.2d at 82 (the paramount consideration in custody determinations is the best interest of the child); AS 25.24.-150(c). ... We believe that the unique facts of this case require a hearing to determine what custody disposition is in the best interests of Mary Jean.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody decisions to rest on a best interests analysis with findings addressing all relevant criteria, even when a parent has failed to cooperate.

Hakas v. Bergenthal · filed 1992-12-24(c)

Given the foregoing we hold that the superior court’s award of custody of Jarle to Bergenthal must be vacated and the matter remanded to the superior court for the purpose of redetermining custody based upon a best interests of the child analysis with appropriate findings of fact which address all relevant criteria of AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody decision to consider the child’s best interests; the court must explain its reasoning when the factors it considered cannot be discerned from the record.

Bird v. Starkey · filed 1996-04-04(c)

We thus find it necessary to remand for specific findings as to where Justin should attend school and why. ... Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) sets out the factors a court should consider in making a custody determination according to a child's best interests. ... The findings need not be extensive, but must either give us a clear indication of the factors which the superior court considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody decisions to consider the child’s best interests; findings need not cite the statute if they show which relevant factors the court considered.

Siekawitch v. Siekawitch · filed 1998-04-10(c)

Although the superior court did not expressly refer to AS 25.24.150(c) in its findings, it did address the pertinent statutory factors. ... We conclude that these findings are sufficient to reveal the court’s reasoning and indicate that the court considered the relevant statutory criteria in devising its custody schedule.

Section 25.24.150(c) directs courts to decide custody based on the child’s best interests and the statutory factors.

Monette v. Hoff · filed 1998-05-15(c)

Trial courts are instructed to award child custody on the basis of the best interests of the child. AS 25.20.060, AS 25.24.150(c). The superior court found that the evidence weighed in favor of an award of custody to Hoff. The court made findings on each of the statutory factors relevant to custody. The findings squarely supported an award of custody to Hoff.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a court deciding whether to modify custody to consider the statutory factors relevant to the children’s best interests.

Vinzant v. Elam · filed 1999-03-19(c)

The best interests determination requires the court to consider the statutory factors applicable in a given dispute. Although the finding that John had frustrated Tammy’s visitation constituted a changed circumstance, the superior court at the show-cause hearing did not address the statutory factors that are potentially relevant to the children’s best interests in this case.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody courts to consider all relevant best-interests factors and make findings that reveal their reasoning.

Park v. Park · filed 1999-09-03(c)

Because the court’s findings are incomplete and do not fully explain its decision, we hold that they fail to comply with AS 25.24.150(c). We therefore remand for findings considering all relevant statutory factors.

Section 25.24.150(c) lists factors the court must consider when deciding whether shared custody serves a child’s best interests.

Bell v. Bell · filed 1990-06-22(c)

AS 25.20.060(a) expressly requires consideration of the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires consideration of the nine best interests factors, including domestic violence, when deciding whether to modify custody permanently.

Lashbrook v. Lashbrook · filed 1998-04-24(c)

Although the finding of domestic violence constituted a changed circumstance, the eight other factors specified in AS 25.24.150(c) that are relevant to the children’s best interests were not addressed at the domestic violence hearing.

Section 25.24.150(c)(9) allows a court deciding custody to consider relevant factors beyond the eight specifically listed, including the child’s overall stability.

Evans v. Evans · filed 1994-03-11(c)(9)

The fact that the trial court could have taken account of the children’s overall stability in addressing factor (c)(5), but did not actually do so, had no bearing on the validity of the court’s ultimate decision in this case, since the court could and did properly consider the same circumstances under paragraph (c)(9) of AS 25.24.150(c). This paragraph vested the court with broad authority to address, in addition to the specific factors articulated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8), all “other factors that the court consider[ed] pertinent.”

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody agreement to serve the child’s best interests, but approving an agreement calls for a less searching analysis than deciding contested custody.

Crane v. Crane · filed 1999-09-10(c)

A trial court properly conducts a less searching best interests analysis in approving a custody settlement than in making a custody determination in a contested action.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts deciding custody to consider the listed best interests factors without giving a factor disproportionate weight.

Ri v. Cc · filed 2000-08-18(c)

He independently made findings regarding the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). ... The superior court also considered the statutorily-mandated factors and did not assign any such factor disproportionate weight.[16] Finally, there is no indication that the superior court considered improper factors in making its custody determination.[17] We accordingly hold that the superior court acted within its discretion in awarding Constance sole legal and physical custody of Cindy.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody decision to address the child's best interests and the relevant statutory factors, even when a parent defaults or disobeys court orders.

Platz v. Aramburo · filed 2001-02-16(c)

On remand an evidentiary hearing concerning the best interests of the child must be held following which the court should enter findings of fact which address the relevant factors specified in AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) permits a court to consider how a parent's departure and lack of contact affected the children's emotional needs when deciding custody.

Velasquez v. Velasquez · filed 2002-01-11(c)

The court's findings regarding Cindy's conduct and its effect on the children are in accordance with its obligation under AS 25,24.150(c) to determine custody with the goal of serving the best interests of the children, and under AS 25.24.150(c)(1) and (2) to consider the emotional needs of the children and each parent's capability and desire to meet those needs.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a court modifying custody to assess the children's best interests under the statutory factors; a parent's failure to comply with custody orders alone is insufficient.

Kelly v. Joseph · filed 2002-05-10(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) requires that courts determine custody in accordance with the children's best interests, after considering specified factors. ... We agree that a superior court may not modify custody solely because the custodial parent does not comply with orders of the court; it must still conduct a best interests analysis.

In applying the custody best interests factors, a court may not count a parent's move against that parent if the move is not primarily intended to make visitation more difficult.

Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch · filed 2002-08-19(c)

As we have indicated in today's opinion-but not clearly in our earlier opinion-it is impermissible to count Faith's move to Florida as a negative best-interests factor personal to Faith if her reasons for moving are legitimate-that is, if the move is not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult.

Section 25.24.150(c) does not permit a custody preference for an anticipated two-parent household without case-specific evidence that it would better serve the child's interests.

West v. West · filed 2001-04-27(c)

A court may certainly give custodial preference to a two-parent household when case-specific evidence points to the conclusion that the second adult custodian would be advantageous under the particular cireum-stances actually presented. But in our view, a presumptive preference for the two-parent setting is unwarranted.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody courts to consider all relevant best interests factors and make findings that show which factors influenced the decision.

Smith v. Weekley · filed 2003-07-18(c)

Because it is not clear to us which factors the superior court considered important or what other considerations were involved in reaching its decision, we remand for the superior court to make specific findings on all relevant factors as required by AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the listed best interests factors when deciding custody; a planned change as a child grows may stand when those factors support it.

Schmitz v. Schmitz · filed 2004-04-16(c)

The trial court must base custody determinations upon the child's best interests, using the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c).[13] ... And in this case, because the trial court properly considered the statutory factors and carefully crafted a custody plan that took into account Johnathon's evolving needs and interests, we affirm the trial court's custody determination.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires consideration of nine best interest factors, but the court need not make an express finding on each factor if its consideration is clear from the record.

Chesser-Witmer v. Chesser · filed 2005-07-15(c)

In determining the best interests of a child, a court is required to consider the nine factors of AS 25.24.150(c).[16] ... The superior court in this case did not make findings regarding each statutory factor, but the language of its analysis makes clear that it properly considered all factors.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires the court to consider the relevant custody factors, but the court need not expressly mention every factor in its findings.

Chase v. Chase · filed 2005-04-01(c)

The superior court’s oral findings indicate that the court weighed the relevant statutory custody factors outlined in AS 25.24.150. We have consistently held that “the trial court need not refer to all the statutory factors in explaining its custody decision.... In other words, ‘[ejxpress mention of each factor is not required.’ ”

Section 25.24.150(c) does not require custody findings to discuss every best-interests factor in detail if the findings or record reveal which factors the court considered important.

Ebertz v. Ebertz · filed 2005-06-03(c)

Our cases hold that in determining the best interests of a child, the court need not discuss each statutory factor in detail; the court’s findings will be sufficient if they “give us a clear indication of the factors which [the court] considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved.”

Section 25.24.150(c) supplies the best interests factors a court must consider when deciding custody, including in a non-divorce dispute.

Elton H. v. Naomi R. · filed 2005-08-26(c)

When faced with a custody dispute pursuant to AS 25.20.060, a superior court shall award custody based on the best interests of the children according to the nine factors described in AS 25.24.150(c).

The court must address each substantially disputed best interest factor in its custody findings, but need not discuss factors the facts do not implicate.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2007-11-09(c)

It is true that when the facts of a case do not implicate particular best interest factors, those factors need not be discussed in the custody determination. But whenever a factor is substantially disputed, it must be addressed by the superior court in its findings.

Custody decisions must consider the child’s best interests, but the court need not explicitly discuss every statutory factor.

Millette v. Millette · filed 2008-01-04(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) governs child custody decisions and requires that the court “determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child....” The statute lists nine factors which the court shall consider in determining the best interests of the child. ... Moreover, our case law does not require that the court explicitly discuss every factor.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires the court to consider the relevant best interests factors, but it need not make express findings on every factor if its findings show which factors mattered.

Chesser v. Chesser-Witmer · filed 2008-03-21(c)

But the trial court need not make express findings on all statutory factors; instead, its findings “must either give us a clear indication of the factors which the superior court considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved.”

Section 25.24.150(c)(9) does not require a court to consider an issue separately under its catch-all factor when the court has already considered it under another listed factor.

Cusack v. Cusack · filed 2009-03-13(c)(9)

Contrary to Gretchen's argument, the court expressly considered the issue Gretchen has raised and therefore did not abuse its discretion by failing to separately consider that issue under the catch-all provision of AS 25.24.150(c)(9).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody findings that show the court considered the relevant best-interests factors.

Dragseth v. Dragseth · filed 2009-07-10(c)

We vacate the legal and physical custody awards and remand for specific findings on the best-interests factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c).

A custody court must consider the statutory best interests factors, and its findings must show which factors mattered to its decision.

Jaymot v. Skillings-Donat · filed 2009-09-25(c)

The trial court is to determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child by considering the list of statutory factors set forth at AS 25.24.150(c). ... Because we can easily identify the factors important to the court’s custody determination, the order is not, as Sarah argues, foun-dationally flawed.

The court must address the best-interest factors relevant to the evidence but need not discuss every factor listed in the statute.

Peterson v. Swarthout · filed 2009-08-14(c)

We have explained on numerous occasions that "[the superior court need not discuss each of the factors; it must only address those that are actually relevant in light of the evidence presented."

Section 25.24.150(c) allows courts to give different weights to its child custody factors according to the circumstances of the case.

Barlow v. Thompson · filed 2009-12-18(c)

Finally, Barlow challenges six of the factual findings in the master's report and argues that the master was biased because he did not "equally weigh the factors" listed in AS 25.24.150 when the master made his custody recommendation. ... courts have considerable discretion in determining the importance of each statutory factor in the context of a specific case. ... The master was not required to weigh the factors equally.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires the court to consider each listed best-interests factor unless a factor has no bearing on the child's well-being.

Nelson v. Nelson · filed 2011-10-28(c)

Nevertheless, the statute requires the superior court to consider each of the enumerated factors unless the court concludes, in light of the facts of a particular case, that certain factors have no bearing on the child's well-being.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts deciding custody to consider the listed factors to determine the child’s best interests.

McNair v. McNair · filed 2012-06-27(c)

Under AS 25.24.150(c) the court is required to consider the following factors to determine the child’s best interests: ... Here, the court made factual findings for each of the AS 25.24.150(c) factors, and those findings are supported by the record.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody court to consider relevant best interests factors, including how a parent’s substance abuse affects the child and the parent’s ability to care for the child.

Jill D. Campbell, f/k/a Jill D. Johnson v. Hanson · filed 2012-07-11(c)

We nonetheless conclude, based on the record, that AS 25.24.150(c) required consideration of: (1) any effect James’s alcohol abuse had on the daughter’s physical and emotional well-being; (2) any effect James’s alcohol abuse had on his ability to safely drive the daughter to or from her visits with her mother and within Anchorage; (3) any effect James’s alcohol abuse had on his ability to parent the daughter; (4) Jill’s ability to change her work schedule; (5) Jill’s ability to protect the child in light of the repeated abuse by Matt Campbell; and (6) Jill’s ability to communicate with James about issues important to the child’s well-being.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the relevant best interests factors when deciding custody and visitation.

Helen S.K. v. Samuel M.K. · filed 2012-11-16(c)

In sum, the record does not indicate that the superior court failed to consider the relevant AS 25.24.150(c) factors or other relevant evidence when making its custody or visitation determinations. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in its custody decisions.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a court making a custody determination to consider the listed best-interests factors.

Jori L. Walker fka Skinner v. Hagberg · filed 2013-02-06(c)

In making a custody determination, the superior court must consider the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c). ... The superior court thus addressed the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c), and the court’s findings provide us with ample indication of the considerations upon which its decision was based.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the relevant best interests factors when deciding custody and to avoid giving undue weight to a single factor.

Rosenblum v. Perales · filed 2013-07-05(c)

Given the court’s careful balancing of a number of different factors that it found relevant to John’s best interests, we cannot say that the superior court gave undue weight to a single one.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a court deciding custody to consider the listed factors bearing on the children’s best interests.

Roberson III v. Morrison · filed 2014-04-16(c)

The superior court must determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the children and must consider the list of statutory factors set forth in AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c)(9) allows the court to consider other factors it finds pertinent when deciding custody.

Wade v. Eddie · filed 2014-04-16(c)(9)

We also note that the statute allows the superior court to consider the enumerated custody factors as well as any “other factors that the court considers pertinent.”

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts deciding custody to consider the statutory best interests factors and permits greater attention to factors central to the case.

Frackman v. Enzor · filed 2014-06-20(c)

Because the court carefully weighed the evidence in light of the statutory factors, the court did not abuse its discretion by modifying custody.

After finding a change in circumstances, a court must assess the best interest factors in subsection (c) before modifying custody.

Graham R. v. Jane S. · filed 2014-09-19(c)

Once a court determines there has been a change in circumstances, it must assess the factors of AS 25.24.150(c) to determine whether a custody modification is in the best interests of the child.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody court to consider the statutory best interests factors and apply its factual findings to them.

Jack C. v. Tally C. · filed 2012-09-07(c)

The superior court properly identified the statutory best interests factors and then applied its factual findings to each enumerated factor.

Subsection (c) requires courts deciding custody in a divorce to consider the child’s best interests; an unchallenged best interests analysis can support the custody decision without resolving a challenge to the domestic violence presumption.

Adam M v. Christina B · filed 2013-06-05(c)

Adam challenges the superior court’s custody award based on the domestic violence presumption, arguing that a custody determination may not be based on default findings of domestic violence, but does not challenge the best interests analysis. We therefore affirm the final custody decision based on the best interests of the child without reaching Adam’s domestic violence arguments.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody modifications to be based on the child’s best interests.

Walters v. Cook · filed 2013-12-18(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) requires the trial court to base its decision to modify a custody order on the best interests of the child.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to weigh a parent's willingness to foster the child's relationship with the other parent alongside the other best-interest factors; a finding against a parent on that factor alone does not make shared physical custody improper.

McGrady v. Chadwick McGrady, Chadwick McGrady v. Svitlana McGrady · filed 2013-03-20(c)

But this finding was one of many that the superior court made when conducting its best-interests analysis under AS 25.24.150 and determining that Chadwick should have sole legal custody. Chadwick has presented no evidence suggesting that the court disregarded this factor or gave disproportionate weight to other factors when making its physical custody award.

Section 25.24.150(c)’s best interests factors do not apply to a passport consent motion that does not seek a custody award or determination.

Patrawke v. Liebes · filed 2012-09-07(c)

Although Patrawke has not sought an "award" or "determination" of custody as used in the Alaska Statutes, and therefore the explicit statutory best interests factors contained in AS 25.24.150(c) 9 do not apply, we conclude that the superior court was *272nonetheless required to account for Kyndle's best interests in this situation.

A custody order must include sufficient findings on the best interests of the child whose custody is affected to permit appellate review.

Provost v. Dooley · filed 2015-02-18(c)

And because the court’s custody order impacted only Anna, the court was required to make findings with respect to Anna’s best interests. In this respect neither the written nor the oral findings provide a sufficient basis for us to review whether the order was reasonable.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires consideration of all best interests factors when deciding custody after a change in circumstances justifies modification.

Azzam v. Carley Mortensen, Carley Mortensen v. Nimer Azzam · filed 2015-02-25(c)

The communication problems constituted the changed circumstances that justified a modification of the existing custody arrangement; having found that a modification was necessary, the superior court properly went on to decide which parent was the better choice for sole legal custody by considering all of the best interests factors under AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) supplies the best interests factors for custody decisions; a court may weigh the relevant factors without discussing each one expressly.

Collier v. Harris · filed 2016-08-12(c)

Branwen takes issue with this alternative holding, contending that the superior court improperly limited its analysis to only one of the statutory best interest factors — “the capability and desire of each parent to meet [the child’s physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social] needs,” AS 25.24.150(c)(2) — and placed too much emphasis on it. We disagree. ... We conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in its consideration or its weighting of the statutory factors, and the record supports its conclusion that assigning sole legal custody and primary physical custody to one parent would not be in Zada’s best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c)’s child custody factors may guide an adoption court’s best interests determination, but they are not mandatory in adoption proceedings.

In Re the Adoption of Hannah L. · filed 2017-03-10(c)

We conclude as a matter of law that in an adoption proceeding courts are free to consider relevant AS 25.24.150(c) factors for guidance in making a best interests determination but that those factors are not mandatory.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody modification decisions to be guided by the child’s best interests factors, including each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs, foster the other parent’s relationship with the child, and provide stability.

Judd v. Burns · filed 2017-07-07(c)

“The superior court’s custody modification decision must be guided by the best interest factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c),”27 which include the capability of the parents to meet the child’s needs; “the love and affection existing between the child and each parent”; stability; each parent’s ability to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent (the “fostering factor”); domestic violence; and substance abuse.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires best interests findings when a court revisits custody after a substantial change in circumstances.

Moore v. McGillis · filed 2018-01-12(c)

But we hold that the legal intervention of a previously absent biological parent constitutes a substantial change in circumstances as a matter of law, and accordingly we reverse the trial court’s denial of the modification motion for the son and remand for best interests findings under AS 25.24.150(c).

A custody court need not expressly cite the statutory best interests factors if its reasoning shows that it considered the pertinent factors.

Jennifer Downs fka Trout v. Trout · filed 2018-06-27(c)

But the superior court does not need to expressly refer to AS 25.24.150(c) as long as its reasoning demonstrates that it considered the appropriate statutory criteria.

Section 25.24.150(c) allows a court to consider a parent’s financial choices when weighing the child’s best interests, alongside other relevant evidence.

Berg v. Berg · filed 2018-08-15(c)

The superior court’s findings demonstrate that it did not abuse its discretion: It considered Julie’s actions related to the foreclosure in its analysis of the relevant factors in AS 25.24.150(c) and considered the foreclosure among other evidence to determine which parent those factors favored.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a court issuing a custody order to determine custody according to the children’s best interests; a parent seeking modification must first show a substantial change in circumstances.

Roberson III v. Morrison · filed 2014-11-12(c)

While a court issuing a custody order must “determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child[ren],”8 modification of custody requires a party to first show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody decisions to reflect the child's best interests, including the child's emotional needs and each parent's willingness to support a relationship with the other parent.

Matthew P. v. Gail S. · filed 2015-08-28(c)

"The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child," taking into account the statutory factors detailed in AS 25.24.150(c). ... The superior court did not abuse its discretion by determining that a return to shared custody was not in Valerie's best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody decision to reflect the child’s best interests; a court may adopt the parents’ agreed arrangement when the record gives no reason to depart from it.

Sherrill v. Sherrill · filed 2016-05-13(c)

a child’s best interests must be evaluated in light of the AS 25.24.150(c) factors.32 ... Therefore we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in entering the child custody order.

A custody court need not address every statutory best interest factor if its findings show which factors mattered to its decision.

Green v. Parks · filed 2014-11-28(c)

The superior court did not address all the statutory best interest factors, but it was not required to do so. The court’s findings must simply give “a clear indication of the factors . . . the superior court considered important in exercising its discretion or allow us to glean from the record what considerations were involved.”

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody modification decisions to be guided by the statutory best interest factors.

Andrea C. v. Marcus K. · filed 2015-08-07(c)

The superior court’s custody modification decision must be guided by the best interest factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to weigh the child's best interest factors when deciding custody.

Sweeney v. Organ · filed 2016-04-15(c)

Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the best interest factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c), we AFFIRM the superior court’s order.

Section 25.24.150(c) allows a court weighing the best interests factors to give determinative weight to a child’s need for therapy and a parent’s ability to meet that need.

Georgette S.B. v. Scott B. · filed 2018-12-07(c)

We are satisfied that the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the best interests factors and assigned determinative weight to the children’s special need for therapy and Georgette’s lack of “the capability and desire” to meet that need.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider a child’s emotional needs when making a custody decision.

Berry v. April L. Berry · filed 2019-12-11(c)

The factual extent of the children’s “emotional needs,” and how they can best be accommodated in a custody decision, is something the superior court is required to consider under AS 25.24.150(c).

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding a child’s best interests in a custody case.

Jayda Roman v. Karren · filed 2020-04-17(c)

The court must consider the factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c) when making its best interests analysis.

Findings addressing the best interests factors in § 25.24.150(c) can satisfy overlapping shared custody factors without separate findings on those factors.

Hardy Jr. v. Nix · filed 2020-05-27(c)

To raise a possible error in this context a party would have to point to an AS 25.20.090 factor not addressed by the AS 25.24.150(c) factors and demonstrate how, by overlooking the factor, the superior court’s decision is flawed.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody decisions to consider the children’s best interests, including their needs, each parent’s ability to meet those needs, and each parent’s ability to support the children’s relationship with the other parent.

Alisa Burns v. Burns · filed 2020-06-26(c)

The court also explained that when it originally granted Alisa primary physical custody and permission to move to New York with the children, it had “emphasized that it was going to be very important that [Alisa] support an open and loving relationship between the children and their father, consistent with AS 25.24.150(c)(6).” The court thus clearly identified which factors it found to be the most important and why those factors were particularly relevant to the children’s best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the best interests factors and permits them to weigh the factors most relevant to the child.

Marschke v. Patrick Luck Dunbar, Jr. · filed 2021-07-21(c)

The superior court considered all the statutory factors and weighed the most relevant factors; although the court found that most factors were equal or carried little weight, the court found that Dunbar was the parent most willing to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Subsection (c) requires courts to determine custody based on the child’s best interests by considering nine statutory factors.

Francesca S., f/k/a Francesca K. v. Shawn K. · filed 2021-09-08(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) requires courts to “determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.” The statute enumerates nine factors for the superior court to consider when making a best interests determination.

Section 25.24.150(c)’s best interests factors may be used to decide whether a parent’s visitation should be supervised.

Nina T. v. Michael P. · filed 2022-07-13(c)

The court thoroughly analyzed the child’s best interests under AS 25.24.150(c) before deciding that Nina would have supervised visitation in Alaska and discussing how Nina could establish unsupervised visits. ... It was not an abuse of discretion to grant Michael custody and limit Nina’s visitation.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody award to rest on a weighing of the relevant best interests factors that allows meaningful review.

Dunham v. Johnson · filed 2022-08-10(c)

But whatever the court’s answer, it must be based on a weighing of the relevant statutory best interests factors in such a way that allows for meaningful review.

In an independent proceeding to terminate parental rights, a court must consider and make findings on the custody best interests factors in Section 25.24.150(c) that are relevant to its decision.

Angelica C. v. Jonathan C. · filed 2022-10-14(c)

“[W]hen determining custody, the superior court is required to consider the nine factors under AS 25.24.150(c), but it ‘need not refer to all of [the factors] in explaining its custody decision’ and may choose to discuss only those factors it finds relevant to the case.”39 ... Thus, as in other types of cases involving a child’s best interests, the court presiding over an independent proceeding to terminate parental rights must consider and make findings on only those factors relevant to its decision.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires a custody court to discuss only the best interests factors relevant to the evidence presented.

Ziegler v. Atsbeha · filed 2022-12-21(c)

The court must discuss only those factors it finds relevant based upon the evidence presented.

A court changing physical custody despite the parents’ agreement must make findings on the statutory best interests factors that support the change.

Semenza v. Rady · filed 2023-04-19(c)

Here, the superior court noted that its decision was “[p]ursuant to the best interest[s] factors as set out in [AS] 25.24.150” but did not explore the factors in any detail. Nothing in the order indicates that the children’s best interests support changing physical custody once they start kindergarten, thus justifying a deviation from the parties’ agreement that Tiffany have primary physical custody. If that was the court’s conclusion, further findings are necessary to support it.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the listed best-interest factors when deciding child custody.

Pasley v. Pasley · filed 2019-06-07(c)

The superior court appropriately considered the factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c) ; in light of evidence in the record, it did not abuse its discretion.

A custody decision may stand when the best interest factors would still favor the same parent even if the challenged factors were treated as neutral.

Bradley S v. Katie C · filed 2020-11-18(c)

He argues that the court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in its consideration of the statutory best interest factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c). ... Even if we agreed with all of his arguments the factors would still weigh in Katie’s favor. The court correctly rejected his motion to reconsider its best interests decision.

Section 25.24.150(a) requires a best interests analysis in specified custody proceedings, but not for temporary custody awarded under a domestic violence protective order.

Barton D. v. Catalina D · filed 2023-05-03(a)

The custody award that Bart challenges on appeal was just such a temporary custody arrangement specifically authorized by AS 18.66.100(c)(9), and the court did not err by failing to conduct the best interests analysis that AS 25.24.150 requires in other contexts.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the best interests factors but allows them to discuss the relevant factors and give them different weight.

Marybeth J. v. Troy T. · filed 2023-05-17(c)

Although the court must consider each of the best interests factors in AS 25.24.150(c), it is only required to “discuss the factors that it deems relevant to the case before it” and “is not required to weigh the factors equally.”

Section 25.24.150(c) lists nine factors courts consider when determining a child’s best interests in a custody decision.

Velasco III v. Meinders · filed 2023-11-15(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) lists nine factors for the court to consider when determining a child’s best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c) sets out the factors for determining a child’s best interests, including the child’s needs and each parent’s ability and desire to meet them.

Polen v. Miller · filed 2023-11-29(c)

To determine the best interests of the child, the court applies the nine factors set out in AS 25.24.150(c). ... We conclude that the court considered the relevant best interest factors and sufficiently articulated why they favored Miller.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the best interests factors relevant to the evidence, but does not require findings on every factor.

Helen M. v. Breandan C. · filed 2024-03-06(c)

The superior court does not need to discuss all the best interests factors, only those “that are actually relevant in light of the evidence presented.”

Section 25.24.150(c) allows the court to weigh the child’s best interests factors using trial testimony and credibility findings; disagreement with that weight alone does not establish an abuse of discretion.

Craft-Johnson v. Christopher Mills · filed 2025-02-26(c)

Her disagreement with the weight the court gave to each factor does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The superior court relied heavily on the testimony presented during trial and its credibility determinations when it considered the best interest factors. It did not abuse its discretion by weighing the best interest factors in the manner that it did.

When choosing which parent should receive sole legal custody, the court must consider the statutory best interests factors.

Landon Rector v. Ammie Parker, F/K/A Ammie Rector · filed 2025-10-08(c)

In determining which parent to award sole legal custody, the court must consider the statutory best interests factors.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider a non-exclusive list of factors when deciding child custody.

Cari Jo Rousselle, F/K/A Cari Jo Ward v. Charles Britt Ward, Jr. · filed 2024-05-01(c)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c) outlines the non- exclusive list of factors that a court must consider in making custody determinations.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires courts to consider the statutory best interest factors when deciding child custody.

Wolffe v. Wolffe · filed 2025-08-01(c)

The record supports the court’s analysis of the statutory best interest factors.

Section 25.24.150(c) does not require a court to name each best interest factor expressly when its findings show that it considered and weighed them all.

Manyoky v. Yekaterina Lutonin, f/k/a Yekaterina Manyoky · filed 2026-05-20(c)

Although the court did not expressly name the best interest factors laid out in AS 25.24.150(c), it is clear from the factual findings discussed above that the court considered and weighed each one.

Section 25.24.150(c)(6) requires the court to consider each parent's ability to support the child's relationship with the other parent when deciding custody.

Jessica P. v. Gary P. · filed 2021-03-17(c)(6)

When deciding custody the superior court must consider “the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child.”26 We disagree with Jessica’s argument that the superior court clearly erred in finding that Jessica interfered with Simon and Gary’s relationship.

Section 25.24.150 requires a custody court to consider the statutory factors relevant to the child’s best interests, including parental relationships, domestic violence, and substance abuse.

Jill Y. v. Casey Y. · filed 2020-05-15(c)(6), (c)(7), (k)

The court not only appropriately considered and weighed the statutory factors most relevant to its custody determination,29 it awarded custody to Jill based upon its consideration. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when making its custody determination.

Section 25.24.150(c) requires custody decisions to consider the child's best interest factors, addressing only those relevant to the evidence.

Walsh v. Brooke Singleton, f/k/a Brooke Wright · filed 2022-06-08(c)

“The superior court’s custody modification decision must be guided by the best interest factors listed in AS 25.24.150(c),”22 which are: ... “The superior court need not discuss each of the factors; it must only address those that are ‘actually relevant in light of the evidence presented.’”

Section 25.24.150(d) permits a court to consider a parent's conduct in a custody decision only when it affects or can reasonably be expected to affect the child's well-being.

Sne v. Rlb · filed 1985-05-10(d)

Consideration of a parent's conduct is appropriate only when the evidence supports a finding that a parent's conduct has or reasonably will have an adverse impact on the child and his best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c)(2) permits a court to consider a parent’s dominating personality when assessing that parent’s ability to meet a child’s needs.

Dingeman v. Dingeman · filed 1993-12-23(c)(2)

The evidence indicating that Bob was dominating in relationships in general leads to the logical conclusion that that personality trait would carry over into any relationship with his daughter Kristina. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering how Bob’s dominating personality would affect his ability to meet Kristina's needs.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) gives weight to a child’s custody preference when it reflects the child’s own wishes, but not when it results entirely from a desire to please or avoid offending the parents.

Rooney v. Rooney · filed 1996-04-12(c)(3)

The statutory standard is meant to give weight to the child’s wishes. Thus, where a child wishes to divide his time between his parents because he desires to, that preference should be given weight. However, where a stated preference results entirely from the child’s desire to satisfy his parent’s wishes — or because he does not wish to offend either of them — such a preference does not fall within the statutory ambit.

Section 25.24.150(c)(2) permits a court to consider a parent’s relationship with a stepchild when assessing that parent’s ability to meet the children’s emotional needs, depending on the circumstances of the relationship.

Tompkins v. Tompkins · filed 1998-07-17(c)(2)

Instead we believe that the sounder approach, represented by the Peterson decision, is to consider the factual circumstances underlying the parent-stepchild relationship in assessing its relevance. ... Given these facts, we find that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in considering the relationship as one factor in its custody decision.

A court must consider a child's custody preference if the child is old enough to form one, but may give that preference less weight when it is influenced by others and outweighed by the child's need for supervision.

Jenkins v. Handel · filed 2000-10-13(c)(3)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)(8) requires superior courts making a custody determination to consider the preference of a child, if he or she is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference. ... Given that LH.'s preference to live with Jenkins was the product of the influence of others, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in giving greater weight to other important factors and in finding that Handel and Muir were in a better position to provide supervision.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) requires the court to consider a child's custody preference if the child is old and capable enough to form one; the trial court has discretion to decide whether the child meets that standard.

Fardig v. Fardig · filed 2002-10-04(c)(3)

AS 25.24.150(c)(3) requires that when determining custody the court take into account the child's preference "if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference." Whether a child is of sufficient age to have a meaningful preference for one parent or the other is a question committed to the discretion of the trial court.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) requires consideration of a child's custody preference, but the child's expectation about where she will live is not a best-interests factor.

McLane v. Paul · filed 2008-08-01(c)(3)

Notably, the statute does not include consideration of the child's expectations in its best-interests analysis16 It does require consideration of the child's preferences,17 but the record does not indicate that Alexis expressed a preference to stay in Ilinois rather than return to Alaska.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) requires consideration of a child's custody preference only when the child has sufficient age and capacity to form one.

William P. v. Taunya P. · filed 2011-08-26(c)(3)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)B) provides that a child's preference is to be considered "if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference." We conclude that the superior court's finding that the boys lacked the age and capacity to form a preference was not clearly erroneous.

An older child's preference should be honored when both parents are capable and neither living situation would be detrimental to the child.

Sheffield v. Sheffield · filed 2011-12-09(c)(8)

Thus, where both parents are capable and neither living situation would be detrimental to the child, an older child's preference should be honored.17 The superior court did not abuse its discretion by assigning significant weight to Davis's preference.

A court should not weigh a parent's unwillingness to foster the child's relationship with the other parent against that parent when it rests on good-faith abuse allegations, unless the unwillingness continues after an evidence-based finding that abuse did not occur.

Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V. · filed 2012-04-27(c)(6)

In light of the apparent good-faith basis of Stephanie's allegations, we conclude that the superior court should re-weigh the "willingness to allow a close and continuing relationship" factor. On remand, the court should not consider this factor against Stephanie unless she has continued her unwillingness to facilitate such a relationship in the period after the superior court made its evidence-based finding that Maxwell had not abused Terrance.

Subsection (c)(6) requires courts deciding custody to consider each parent’s willingness and ability to encourage a close relationship between the child and the other parent.

Ronny M. v. Nanette H. · filed 2013-05-31(c)(6)

The superior court must consider “the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child” in determining the child’s best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c)(6) allows a court to give greater weight to a parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent when the parents live in different cities.

Nancy M. v. John M. · filed 2013-09-13(c)(6)

We have explained that the close and continuing relationship factor takes on “increased significance” when the parties reside in different cities, and thus it is reasonable for the court to place “enhanced importance” on this factor in a custody determination.

In assessing a parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent, a court may consider unsupported allegations made during custody litigation.

James R. v. Kylie R. · filed 2014-03-07(c)(6)

But some unsupported allegations fall outside the normal course of litigation and may speak to a parent’s unwillingness to foster a relationship. In such a case, the court may consider the parent’s litigation conduct to ensure that child custody is ultimately decided in light of the child’s best interests, including the child’s interest in having the custodial parent foster a relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.

A court may weigh a parent’s ongoing marijuana use in a custody decision when evidence shows that the use has affected the children’s emotional well-being.

Co v. Matson · filed 2013-11-29(c)(8)

And it was reasonable to conclude that Co’s admitted marijuana use had an effect on the emotional well-being of the children in light of the evidence of how Co’s marijuana use affected the children in the past.

In assessing a parent's willingness to foster a continuing relationship with the other parent, a court may consider an unproved allegation that lacks sufficient supporting evidence.

Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V. · filed 2014-02-28(c)(6)

Here, we cannot conclude that the superior court abused its discretion in determining that Stephanie had not presented sufficient evidence in support of her allegation to warrant removing the unfounded allegation from consideration in the continuing-relationship factor.

The willingness-to-foster factor does not permit a court to penalize a parent for custody allegations without allowing the parent to establish whether they were made in good faith and making supporting factual findings.

Red Elk v. McBride · filed 2015-03-13(c)(6)

If Red Elk made these allegations in good faith and on the basis of supporting evidence, then it was an abuse of discretion for the superior court to weigh Red Elk’s litigation conduct against him and to make a visitation decision on this basis. As we said in the Stephanie W. cases and in James R., a court cannot penalize a parent for his use of process without giving the parent the opportunity to establish whether the allegations were made in good faith and without the court making factual findings to support its decision.

Courts must consider a child’s custody preference if the child is old enough and has the capacity to form one, and may give considerable weight to a teenager’s preference.

Thomas G. v. Sonya G. · filed 2015-06-24(c)(3)

It properly placed considerable weight on the teenage son’s expressed preference to live with his mother. Alaska Statute 25.24.150(c)(3) requires courts making custody determinations to consider “the child’s preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference.”

A court may give limited weight to a child's custody preference if it finds the preference unreliable or improperly motivated.

Wells v. Barile · filed 2015-10-16(c)

But a court does not abuse its discretion simply because it orders a custody arrangement that differs from a child’s stated preference.

A child’s custody preference may be given no weight when the child has been unduly influenced, even if the child is a teenager.

Michael M. v. Catherine T. · filed 2016-10-19(c)(3)

We have held that a child’s preference may be disregarded when unduly influenced even when, as here, the child is a teenager.

A custody court may leave young children’s preferences undiscussed when evidence suggests a parent influenced them.

Schaeffer-Mathis v. Mathis · filed 2017-10-27(c)(3)

Given these findings and the children’s young ages, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to explicitly discuss the children’s preferences.

A court may not treat a parent’s corporal punishment as an adverse custody factor without finding harm to the child.

Pingree v. Cossette · filed 2018-07-27(c)(9)

It was therefore inappropriate for the superior court to comment on Beth’s practice in a way that suggested disapproval without first finding harm to the child.

Section 25.24.150(c)(6) requires courts to weigh each parent’s willingness and ability to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent; failing to weigh a parent’s interference is an abuse of discretion.

Weathers v. Weathers · filed 2018-08-10(c)(6)

We conclude that the superior court’s custody award was an abuse of discretion because it gave disproportionate weight to grandparent involvement as a factor favoring the father while failing to weigh against the father the statutory best interests factor regarding the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.

Subsection (c)(8) considers a parent’s substance abuse only when it directly affects the child’s emotional or physical well-being.

Lewis G. v. Cassie Y. · filed 2018-09-28(c)(8)

Lewis is correct that the eighth best interests factor considers only evidence of substance abuse that “directly affects the emotional or physical well-being of the child.”

When assessing a parent’s capacity to meet a child’s needs, the court may weigh conflicting evidence about the child’s safety under a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2019-11-29(c)(2)

Given the competing testimony, and absent any clearer evidence of the timing of the girl’s injury, it was not error to conclude that Sharon had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that it occurred during Everett’s custodial time.

A child’s preference is a best interests factor, but the court need not consider it unless a substantial change in circumstances first calls for a best interests analysis.

Andrea C. v. Marcus K. · filed 2018-11-28(c)(3)

“[T]he child’s preference” is one of the nine statutory factors a court must take into account in ... determining a child’s best interests.21 But as discussed above, no “best interests” analysis was required in this case.

A court may decline to consider a child’s custody preference when the child lacks sufficient capacity to form one.

Joanne M. Sidney f/k/a Joanne M. Gingerich v. Gingerich · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

But in this case the custody investigator reported that Noah lacked capacity to form a preference, and Sidney did not rebut this evidence. The superior court therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider Noah’s preference.

A court may consider parental conduct that can be expected to affect the child’s well-being; the child need not have suffered actual physical harm.

Adrianne C. v. Christopher D. · filed 2021-01-13(d)

Our requirement of “a nexus between the conduct of the parent relied upon by the court and the parent-child relationship”21 is not a requirement that a child suffer actual physical harm from the parent’s conduct before the court can consider that conduct when determining the child’s best interests.

Section 25.24.150(c)(2) requires courts to assess each parent’s capability and desire to meet the child’s needs, rather than relying solely on the resources available when modification is requested.

Arica J. Carpenter f/k/a Arica J. Blue v. Blue · filed 2021-03-17(c)(2)

But factor two concerns the parents’ “capability and desire” to meet the child’s needs, not necessarily how those needs are being met “at the time of the request” for a custody modification.

A parent’s unwillingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent is excused only for the statute’s domestic-violence-related reasons, not because the other parent also fails to foster the relationship.

Karen Chichenoff f/k/a Karen Blondin v. Blondin · filed 2021-09-15(c)(6)

But the statute excuses a parent’s unwillingness to foster a relationship only for limited reasons related to domestic violence, not because the other parent fails to promote the child-parent relationship.

Before weighing a parent’s unwillingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent, the court must determine whether the parent believed in good faith that the other parent posed a threat.

Kriya D. v. Scott C. · filed 2023-01-25(c)(6)

Under our Stephanie W. decisions, ... it was error to consider Kriya’s “alienation” under AS 25.24.150(c)(6) without finding whether she believed in good faith that Scott posed a threat.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) requires a court to consider a child’s custody preference when the child is capable of forming one, but does not require the child to participate as a party.

Oscar M., a Minor v. Marilyn P. and Shawn M. · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

Alaska law thus provides for the court’s consideration of a child’s preferences in determining custody without requiring that the child participate as a party.

A custody court need not discuss a child's preference when neither parent presents evidence of the child's custodial preference.

Brittney M. v. Andrew J. · filed 2025-05-21(c)(3)

The court did not abuse its discretion by not discussing a factor that was not relevant.

A child's school preference is a factor in deciding legal custody, but it need not control when other best interests factors carry greater weight.

Jessie C. Rice f/k/a Jessie Kitamura v. Kookesh · filed 2026-04-29(c)(3)

Here, the superior court did give some weight to the child’s preference, but ultimately concluded that that factor was not determinative. The court reasoned that the child was still “quite young” and that Kookesh’s perspective on her long-term academic success should carry greater weight. The court was within its discretion to weigh these factors as it did.

Section 25.24.150(c)(3) requires courts to consider a child’s preference when the child is old enough to form one, but does not prescribe how to learn that preference or what result to reach.

Collins II v. Collins · filed 2026-05-27(c)(3)

The best interests statute does not prescribe any method to discern a child’s preference nor does it dictate any particular result. AS 25.24.150(c)(3) (“In determining the best interests of the child the court shall consider the child’s preference if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form a preference. . . .”).

Section 25.24.150(c)(8) requires consideration of substance abuse that affects a child’s well-being by a parent or household member; substance abuse by people outside the household is not strictly relevant under that factor.

Kurpjuweit v. Tiel · filed 2024-10-23(c)(8)

The superior court must consider substance abuse by a parent “or other members of the household” that affects the child’s well-being. AS 25.24.150(c)(8). Neither Tiel’s friend nor her ex-husband is a member of Tiel’s household. Their substance abuse is not strictly relevant under AS 25.24.150(c)(8).

A parent’s DUI-related loss of a driver’s license may weigh against that parent under the substance abuse factor when it limits daily childcare and the ability to respond to emergencies.

Wild Bill Williams v. Daniel · filed 2025-02-26(c)(8)

But the court could reasonably conclude that a parent who has lost his driver’s license is, at least to some degree, less able to accomplish the normal day-to-day activities of childcare. And a parent who must risk arrest in order to respond to emergencies is plainly disadvantaged when it comes to caring for the child’s well-being.

Section 25.24.150(c)(6) requires the court to consider each parent’s willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent; a few missed calls during a week-long visit did not make the finding of equal willingness clearly erroneous.

Dalman v. Collado · filed 2026-01-14(c)(6)

The missed connections that Rena describes do not convince us that the judge clearly erred in finding that each parent was equally willing to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Section 25.24.150(c)(7) requires a custody court to consider spousal abuse and make findings about its effects when abuse is at issue.

Lowdermilk v. Lowdermilk · filed 1992-02-07(c)(7)

The court ignored the issue of spousal abuse, a factor it is required to consider by AS 25.24.150(c)(7), despite extensive evidence of spousal abuse in the record.. Although detailed findings on every factor mandated by AS 25.24.150(c) are not required where the factor is not at issue, spousal abuse was unquestionably at issue in this case. The court abused its discretion by failing to make findings in regard to spousal abuse, its effect on Diane, and its effect — if any — on Diane’s apparently unacceptable mental state, i.e. her instability.

Section 25.24.150(c)(7) requires the court to consider evidence of spousal abuse and make findings about its effect on the child's best interests.

Carstens v. Carstens · filed 1994-02-11(c)(7)

Even so, the trial judge made specific findings that there was no showing that the abuse affected or would affect Elizabeth. He thus fulfilled the requirements of AS 25.24.150(c)(7) and Low-dermilk by specifically considering evidence of spousal abuse and making factual findings on the issue as to the best interests of Elizabeth.

Section 25.24.150(c)(7) permits a court to give substantial weight to domestic violence when weighing the best interests factors in a custody decision.

Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink · filed 1997-06-27(c)(7)

The trial court did not place undue weight on the domestic violence factor; it was this factor that most strongly weighed in favor of one parent and against the other, and the trial court did not inappropriately weigh that factor in comparison with other circumstances, which were largely in balance.

When a court finds domestic violence in a custody case, it must determine whether the violence amounts to a history of perpetrating domestic violence under subsection (h).

Puddicombe v. Dreka · filed 2007-09-14(h)

We hold that when the record shows that domestic violence has occurred and the court so finds, it is plain error for the court not to make findings as to whether the domestic violence amounted to a history of perpetrating domestic violence. If such a history is found then the path charted in subsection .150(g)-(i) must be followed.

Section 25.24.150(g)'s domestic violence presumption does not automatically override a voluntary custody agreement.

Ginn-Williams v. Williams · filed 2006-09-08(g)

Our decision that the statute does not automatically trump a voluntary custody agreement makes it unnecessary to consider whether AS 25.24.150(g) applies to conduct occurring before the provision’s effective date.

Section 25.24.150(h) requires a custody court to determine whether established domestic violence amounts to a history of perpetrating domestic violence.

Michele M. v. Richard R. · filed 2008-02-29(h)

However, given the evidence presented at trial and the superior court’s 2001 decision which indicated the possibility that Richard may have a “history of perpetrating domestic violence” under AS 25.24.150(h), we VACATE the award of custody to Richard and REMAND for findings in accordance with AS 25.24.150(g)-(i).

Section 25.24.150(h) requires a finding of serious physical injury in one domestic violence incident or at least two incidents before the presumption favoring supervised visitation arises.

Morris v. Horn · filed 2009-11-13(h)

But unless the court finds that a single act of domestic violence "caused serious physical injury," AS 25.24.150(h) requires the court to find that at least two instances of domestic violence occurred before the presumption arises in favor of supervised visitation.

Section 25.24.150 uses Title 11’s definition of serious physical injury to determine whether a parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence.

Parks v. Parks · filed 2009-08-07(h)

We hold that Title 11's definition of "serious physical injury" applies to AS 25.24.150.

Section 25.24.150(g) bars any award of custody to a parent with a history of domestic violence unless the presumption against custody is overcome.

Wee v. Eggener · filed 2010-03-12(g)

If the presumption is not overcome, AS 25.24.150(g) prohibits awarding the perpetrating parent any type of eustody.

Two incidents are sufficient to establish a history of perpetrating domestic violence under § 25.24.150(b).

Dale H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services · filed 2010-07-09(b)

Although Dale has only two domestic violence judgments, two incidents are sufficient to comprise a "history of perpetrating domestic violence." See AS 25.24.150(b).

Section 25.24.150(c)(7) requires a court to consider evidence of past domestic violence when the issue was not addressed in earlier custody proceedings.

Heather W. v. Rudy R. · filed 2012-04-20(c)(7)

In this case, it does not appear that evidence of Rudy's domestic violence has ever been heard in a custody proceeding, and thus the superior court erred in refusing to consider evidence of domestic violence.

A court may investigate disputed domestic violence allegations before deciding whether the rebuttable presumption against custody applies.

Charles Hopson and Adeline Hopson v. Rashad Hart, Sr. · filed 2012-09-12(g)

The superior court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a limited custody investigation to determine whether the statutory rebuttable presumption raised by multiple incidents of domestic violence should apply in this case.

Under subsection (h), one incident of domestic violence establishes a history of perpetrating domestic violence if the parent caused serious physical injury.

Clark v. Clark · filed 2012-09-26(h)

Alaska Statute 25.24.150(h) provides in pertinent part that a parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence “if the court finds that, during one incident of domestic violence, the parent caused serious physical injury.” ... The trial court did not plainly err here by failing to find that Perlita had a history of perpetrating domestic violence on the basis of serious physical injury to Joshua.

When both parents have a history of domestic violence and neither is more likely to continue it, the court may decide that the custody presumption applies to neither parent and then consider the remaining best interests factors.

Mallory D. v. Malcolm D. · filed 2012-12-28(g)

If the trial court finds that both parents have a history of perpetrating domestic violence as defined by AS 25,24,150(h), but also finds that neither parent is more likely than the other to continue to perpetrate the violence, the trial court may exercise its discretion and conclude that the rebuttable presumption set forth in AS 25.24.150(g) does not apply to either parent. Thereafter, the trial court should consider the remaining best-interests factors in making its custody decision.

When a court finds domestic violence, subsection (h) requires express findings on whether it amounts to a history of domestic violence that triggers the rebuttable presumption against custody for the abusive parent.

Shanigan v. Shanigan · filed 2013-02-27(h)

We have held that “where a superior court finds that domestic violence occurred, it must make express findings regarding whether the incident or incidents of domestic violence constitute a ‘history of perpetrating domestic violence’ under AS 25.24.150(h)” so as to trigger a rebuttable presumption against an award of sole or joint custody to the abusive parent.14 The superior court in this case found no “domestic violence to the level contemplated by the statute,”15 a finding Terrence contends is contrary to the evidence. Again, however, there is nothing in the record that persuades us that the superior court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous.

A history of domestic violence can trigger the custody presumption when one incident caused serious physical injury or the parent committed more than one incident.

Gregory P. v. Jennifer P., on behalf of B.P., a minor · filed 2014-03-05(g), (h)

A history of domestic violence can be shown if one incident of domestic violence caused “serious physical injury” or there has been more than one incident of violence. AS 25.24.150(h). The domestic violence found by the superior court and affirmed here did not cause serious bodily injury, and thus another incident would have to be substantiated for the presumption to apply.

A history of domestic violence requires a finding of more than one incident when no serious physical injury is alleged.

Limeres v. Limeres · filed 2014-03-14(h)

Since it was not alleged that Rene had caused serious physical injury, the finding of a history of domestic violence required a finding that there was more than one incident.