## Facts

- Ronny M. (father) and Nanette H. (mother) are unmarried parents of two children born in Florida in 1999 and 2000.
- The trial court found a significant history of domestic violence by Ronny against Nanette, including multiple 2002 assault convictions and protective-order proceedings that initially restricted Ronny to supervised visitation.
- Ronny later complied with Florida child-protection requirements and progressed to unsupervised visitation.
- Ronny remained involved with the children until April 2007, then stopped contact.
- In 2009 Nanette married and relocated with the children to Alaska without informing Ronny.
- In 2010 Nanette filed an Alaska action seeking custody and child support; Ronny opposed and sought primary physical and sole legal custody.
- After a two-day evidentiary hearing in 2011, the superior court awarded Nanette primary physical custody; ordered a modified joint legal custody arrangement requiring consultation but giving Nanette final decision-making authority if the parties disagreed; granted Ronny summer visitation conditioned on his payment of the children’s travel costs; and ordered child support.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion in awarding Nanette primary physical custody and modified joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority.
2. Whether the superior court erred in determining child support, including its income findings and application of Alaska Civil Rule 90.3.
3. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by requiring Ronny to pay all visitation travel expenses for long-distance visitation.
4. Whether alleged procedural errors (including bias and due process complaints) required reversal.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the custody order awarding Nanette primary physical custody and modified joint legal custody with Nanette holding final decision-making authority on major disputes.
- The court affirmed the child support award, concluding the income findings and Rule 90.3 calculations were supported by the record.
- The court reversed and remanded the allocation of visitation travel expenses because the superior court did not sufficiently explain requiring Ronny to bear all travel costs in light of Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(g).
- The court rejected claims of bias, procedural unfairness, and other factual challenges as lacking merit.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations are governed by the children’s best interests under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c); custody rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and supporting factual findings for clear error.
- A parent’s history of domestic violence triggers a rebuttable presumption against custody under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(g); trial courts may find the presumption rebutted in part based on evidence such as completion of required programs and absence of recent violence.
- Alaska courts may order a modified form of joint legal custody requiring consultation while granting one parent tie-breaking authority when the circumstances and best-interest factors justify it.
- Child support determinations under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 are reviewed for abuse of discretion; income determinations may be based on historical earnings and earning capacity when supported by the evidence.
- Under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(g), courts must address unusually high visitation costs and must explain the basis for allocating long-distance travel expenses, particularly when assigning all costs to one parent.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the custody and child support determinations, including a joint legal custody arrangement with maternal tie-breaking authority, but remanded for further findings because the superior court did not adequately justify requiring the father to pay all long-distance visitation travel expenses under Rule 90.3(g).


Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013)