Brittney M. and Andrew J.

Palmer, Alaska famiyl law lawyer represented the Defendant in a custody dispute.





Brittney M. and Andrew J.[1] were married and have two daughters. They have had several custody arrangements since their divorce in 2017. Each of them subsequently remarried. Beginning in December 2019, they shared joint legal custody and split physical custody on a 65/35 basis. The children spent weekdays with Brittney and three weekends each month with Andrew during the school year.



In August 2022, Brittney's then-husband assaulted her. He was arrested and charged with the assault. Brittney's petition for a long-term protective order against him was granted; she filed for divorce soon afterward.



In February 2023, Andrew moved to modify custody, seeking primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the girls. He asserted that Brittney was not taking them to school and that the older daughter had missed 28 days of school and the younger daughter 41 days that school year. He also claimed that Brittney was cultivating an inappropriate relationship with the older daughter and alienating her from him and his wife. Brittney opposed his motion. She argued that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances. She claimed that the school absences were due to a bus driver strike and that she "did facilitate" distance learning at that time. But she acknowledged that many of her text exchanges with the older daughter were inappropriate and said that she understood she needed to "make changes."



While the modification motion was pending, Andrew filed a motion to require Brittney to submit to a drug test. He alleged that Brittney was using "cocaine or some similar hard drugs," relying on text messages sent to him by her ex-husband. Brittney denied she was abusing drugs and disputed that the text messages were

authentic. She said that she had been taking Vivitrol for almost five months.[2] The superior court ordered her to complete a drug test.



* * *



Legal issue Did the court abuse its discretion in modifying child custody to award sole legal and primary physical custody to the father?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. CHILD CUSTODY MODIFICATION. The case involves an appeal by the mother against a superior court's decision to modify child custody, awarding the father sole legal and primary physical custody. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the superior court did not abuse its discretion when determining custody in the children's best interests, based on substantial changes in circumstances and the statutory best interest factors.



FAMILY LAW. SUBSTANCE ABUSE CONSIDERATION. The appellate court addressed the issue of whether the superior court erred in considering the mother's use of Vivitrol as part of its analysis in modifying custody. It found that the court did not abuse its discretion, as substance abuse factors are relevant to custody determinations affecting the child's welfare.



CIVIL PROCEDURE. SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S BRIEF. The court emphasized that while it applies a lenient standard to self-represented parties' briefs, such parties must still provide a legal theory and cite authority to avoid waiver of their arguments. In this case, the court treated some of the mother's cursory arguments as waived due to lack of legal foundation or factual support.

Key Phrases Child custody modification. Sole legal custody. Substance abuse assessment. Domestic violence protective order. School attendance and educational performance.



* * *



MoreLaw's goal is to help people seeking legal assistance to find the best lawyers available to represent them in any county in the United States. Click the link above to see some lawyers available where this case was tried who might be available to represent you. Call 833-200-3094 if you need help finding a lawyer.

Affirmed