In Saffir v. Wheeler, the supreme court held that the superior court erred by failing to engage in proper symmetrical analysis of childcare stability and continuity in a child custody dispute, but did not abuse its discretion in not ordering protective measures to ensure the father’s sobriety while caring for the child. Saffir sought primary custody of her daughter and expressed desire to move with the child to New York because Wheeler’s drinking habit and work schedule allegedly interfered with his ability to parent. Because Saffir planned to leave the state, the superior court considered the eight factors necessary to determine the child’s best interest under AS 25.24.150(c), notably including maintaining the child’s continuity in a stable living environment. The superior court awarded primary custody to Wheeler if Saffir moved to New York and split custody if Saffir remained in Alaska, in part for the purpose of maintaining the child’s stability and continuity in Alaska. The superior court further declined to impose conditions requiring Wheeler to demonstrate sobriety while parenting. Saffir appealed six of the superior court’s best-interest findings based on unfair weighing, and argued that the superior court abused its discretion in declining to impose sobriety tests. On appeal, the supreme court found that the superior court had not applied the proper symmetric considerations when it analyzed the stability and continuity factor. Specifically, superior court did not properly consider the impact that being separated from Saffir would have on the child if Saffir moved to New York, despite finding that Saffir was the child’s primary care giver. The supreme court ruled that this failure to engage in proper symmetrical analysis constituted error. Secondarily, the supreme court found that the superior court’s decision to not impose parental sobriety tests on Wheeler was within its discretion when considering conflicting evidence, and therefore did not constitute clear error. Vacating and remanding in part and affirming in part, the supreme court held that the superior court erred by failing to engage in proper symmetrical analysis in the child custody dispute, but did not abuse its discretion in not ordering protective measures to ensure the father’s sobriety while caring for the child.
 436 P.3d 1009 (Alaska 2019).