Main Menu

Rainer v. Poole

FAMILY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Elza Bouhassira

In Rainer v. Poole, 510 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a court cannot modify a custody order without a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481). The parents in this case had a child in June 2013 and their relationship ended in late 2013. (Id. at 478). The mother was awarded primary physical custody in March 2015, while the father was awarded some unsupervised visitation time. (Id.). The parents were awarded joint legal custody. (Id.). In December 2018, the parties updated the agreement after a motion by the father to modify the 2015 order. (Id. at 479). In June 2020, the father requested full custody of their child, claiming that he would provide a better environment for the child. (Id.). The lower court found that there was a substantial change in circumstances and granted the father full physical custody of the child, noting that its decision came down to credibility. (Id. at 481). The mother appealed, arguing that there was not a substantial change in circumstances. (Id.). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the lower court had not made sufficient factual findings to determine if there had been a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 478). The supreme court stated that three principles should have guided the lower court’s analysis in determining if there was a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481). First, present circumstances should be compared to those that existed at the time of the most recent custody proceedings to determine if there was a substantial change. (Id.). Second, conduct interfering with a parent’s custody rights could establish a substantial change in circumstances even if similar conduct occurred in the past. (Id. at 482). Third, courts must consider lesser sanctions for noncompliance with a custody order before modifying custody. (Id. at 483). Here, the lower court did not make sufficient factual findings on these principles as to whether there was a substantial change in circumstances and so should not have granted a motion to modify a child custody order. (Id. at 484). Reversing and remanding the lower court, the supreme court held that a court cannot modify a custody order without a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481).

 

Rainer v. Poole

FAMILY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Elza Bouhassira

In Rainer v. Poole, 510 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a court cannot modify a custody order without a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481). The parents in this case had a child in June 2013 and their relationship ended in late 2013. (Id. at 478). The mother was awarded primary physical custody in March 2015, while the father was awarded some unsupervised visitation time. (Id.). The parents were awarded joint legal custody. (Id.). In December 2018, the parties updated the agreement after a motion by the father to modify the 2015 order. (Id. at 479). In June 2020, the father requested full custody of their child, claiming that he would provide a better environment for the child. (Id.). The lower court found that there was a substantial change in circumstances and granted the father full physical custody of the child, noting that its decision came down to credibility. (Id. at 481). The mother appealed, arguing that there was not a substantial change in circumstances. (Id.). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the lower court had not made sufficient factual findings to determine if there had been a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 478). The supreme court stated that three principles should have guided the lower court’s analysis in determining if there was a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481). First, present circumstances should be compared to those that existed at the time of the most recent custody proceedings to determine if there was a substantial change. (Id.). Second, conduct interfering with a parent’s custody rights could establish a substantial change in circumstances even if similar conduct occurred in the past. (Id. at 482). Third, courts must consider lesser sanctions for noncompliance with a custody order before modifying custody. (Id. at 483). Here, the lower court did not make sufficient factual findings on these principles as to whether there was a substantial change in circumstances and so should not have granted a motion to modify a child custody order. (Id. at 484). Reversing and remanding the lower court, the supreme court held that a court cannot modify a custody order without a substantial change in circumstances. (Id. at 481).