## Facts

- Thomas Rexford (Mr. Rexford) and Sandra Rexford (Mrs. Rexford) were long-time residents of Alaska and had two minor children.
- In November 1978, Mrs. Rexford left Alaska for California and took the children with her without Mr. Rexford’s consent.
- Eight days after arriving in California, Mrs. Rexford filed an action in California state court seeking legal separation and custody.
- Mr. Rexford opposed the California custody request and participated in the California proceeding through counsel.
- The California court entered a temporary custody order in Mrs. Rexford’s favor.
- The California court directed the county probation department to investigate and report on the parents and the children to assist in deciding permanent custody.
- The probation department conducted a broad investigation, including interviews with both parents, the children, the children’s doctors, and other persons familiar with the children, and prepared a lengthy report for the California court.
- While the California custody proceeding was still pending, Mr. Rexford filed a divorce and custody action in Alaska superior court.
- The Alaska superior court stayed the Alaska custody proceedings while the California custody matter remained pending.
- Mr. Rexford appealed the stay, arguing Alaska should proceed because Alaska was the children’s home state before the move and because deferring to California would reward a unilateral removal.

## Issues

1. Under Alaska’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), did the Alaska superior court properly stay the Alaska custody action in deference to the earlier-filed, pending California custody proceeding?

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the Alaska superior court’s stay of the Alaska custody proceeding.
- The court held that staying the Alaska case was consistent with the UCCJA’s direction to avoid competing custody litigation in different states and to minimize the risk of conflicting custody rulings.
- The court emphasized that California had already taken substantial steps toward a custody decision, including issuing a temporary order and developing an extensive factual record through the probation-department investigation.
- Although the court recognized the UCCJA’s stated goal of discouraging child-taking and unilateral removals to gain a forum advantage, it concluded that the superior court could still defer to the California proceeding given the posture of the litigation and the amount of evidence already assembled there.

## Legal Principles

- A central aim of the UCCJA is to reduce interstate custody conflict by discouraging parallel custody proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent custody orders.
- When a custody case is already pending in another state, an Alaska court may stay its own custody proceeding to avoid duplicative litigation and to reduce disruption for the children.
- In deciding whether to proceed or to pause in favor of another forum, courts may consider the extent to which the other state has already developed a record relevant to the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
- The UCCJA reflects disapproval of unilateral removals undertaken to secure a perceived forum advantage, but that policy does not automatically require the home state to press forward when another state has an ongoing case that has progressed substantially.
- A stay order in these circumstances is reviewed with deference to the trial court’s case-management judgment so long as it aligns with the UCCJA’s objectives and the children’s welfare.

## Conclusion

Rexford v. Rexford holds that Alaska’s superior court acted properly in staying an Alaska custody action while an earlier California custody proceeding—initiated shortly after the mother moved to California with the children—continued, particularly where California had already issued temporary custody orders and compiled extensive investigative information relevant to a final custody determination.


Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475 (1980)