Rosenblum v. Perales

[FAMILY LAW]

In Rosenblum v. Perales,[1] the supreme court held that a court is not barred from considering a parent’s military deployment when resolving a custody dispute.[2] Perales sued Rosenblum, the father of her four-year-old son, for primary physical custody and shared legal custody.[3] The trial court awarded custody to Perales.[4] On appeal, Rosenblum argued that the trial court’s decision violated the law by taking into account his regular military deployments in determining custody.[5] The law mandated that “a parent’s temporary duty, mobilization, or deployment to military service and the resultant temporary disruption to the child of the parent may not be a factor in a court’s [custody] decision.”[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that “temporary” should be given its ordinary meaning.[7] Therefore, Rosenblum’s recurring deployment for a third of every year was not temporary because each deployment continued beyond a limited period of time.[8] Accordingly, it was also reasonable to conclude that the disruption this deployment schedule would cause to his son would not be temporary.[9] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a court is not barred from considering a parent’s military deployment when resolving a custody dispute.[10]

 

 



[1] 303 P.3d 500 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 509, 506.

[3] Id. at 502.

[4] Id. at 503.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 505.

[7] Id. at 506.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 509, 506.

Rosenblum v. Perales

[FAMILY LAW]

In Rosenblum v. Perales,[1] the supreme court held that a court is not barred from considering a parent’s military deployment when resolving a custody dispute.[2] Perales sued Rosenblum, the father of her four-year-old son, for primary physical custody and shared legal custody.[3] The trial court awarded custody to Perales.[4] On appeal, Rosenblum argued that the trial court’s decision violated the law by taking into account his regular military deployments in determining custody.[5] The law mandated that “a parent’s temporary duty, mobilization, or deployment to military service and the resultant temporary disruption to the child of the parent may not be a factor in a court’s [custody] decision.”[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that “temporary” should be given its ordinary meaning.[7] Therefore, Rosenblum’s recurring deployment for a third of every year was not temporary because each deployment continued beyond a limited period of time.[8] Accordingly, it was also reasonable to conclude that the disruption this deployment schedule would cause to his son would not be temporary.[9] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a court is not barred from considering a parent’s military deployment when resolving a custody dispute.[10]

 

 



[1] 303 P.3d 500 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 509, 506.

[3] Id. at 502.

[4] Id. at 503.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 505.

[7] Id. at 506.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 509, 506.