Campbell v. Schmidt
| Docket Number | S-18482,1983 |
| Decision Date | 09 August 2023 |
| Parties | JACQUELINE CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. ISHMAEL SCHMIDT, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Superior Court No. 3AN-21-08858 CI Anchorage, Andrew Guidi, Judge.
Jacqueline Campbell, pro se, Austin, Texas, Appellant.
Ishmael Schmidt, pro se, Anchorage, Appellee.
Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Maassen, Carney, Borghesan and Henderson, Justices.
A superior court denied a mother's request to modify an order granting custody to their child's father. The mother appeals. She argues that the superior court erred by not modifying the custody order, by denying summer visitation, by denying her request for a writ of assistance, by not rescheduling a hearing that she missed, and by not entering a written order. She also argues that the judge discriminated against her. We affirm the superior court's decision.
Jacqueline Campbell and Ishmael Schmidt have a six-year-old child who was born in Alaska. In 2019 Campbell and the child moved to Arizona. In September 2020 she sought a protective order in Arizona against Schmidt, and the court granted her request for no contact. Two months later the child returned to Schmidt in Alaska for an agreed-upon one-week visit.
In January 2021 the Arizona court issued a temporary order placing the child in Campbell's care and allowing her to retrieve him from Alaska after Schmidt had failed to return the child. The order also prohibited Campbell and Schmidt from relocating "without agreement of the parties or by Court Order." On February 6 Campbell arrived in Alaska after midnight. She contacted Schmidt and told him that she needed "food . . . a bong and a beer." She arrived at Schmidt's home around 4:00 a.m. and "demanded the child." Schmidt asked if she had been drinking before asking her to leave his home. After a heated exchange, Schmidt called police, who arrested Campbell for trespassing. She was released from jail two days later and returned to Arizona with the child.
In July Campbell and Schmidt reached an agreement that Campbell would move back to Alaska and they would share legal decision-making and have equal parenting time. Campbell revoked her agreement after a dispute over health care issues and moved to Texas with the child, which violated the Arizona court's temporary order.
Campbell filed a petition in Arizona to establish legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support.[1] Schmidt filed a custody action in Alaska, but the Alaska court determined it lacked jurisdiction.[2] The Arizona court held a trial on Campbell's petition. In August the court issued a custody and visitation order. After analyzing all of the required statutory factors, the court found that it was in the child's best interests that Schmidt become the primary residential parent. The court based its decision, in part, on Campbell's violation of the temporary order prohibiting relocation and her "unreasonable" behavior in Alaska in February.
Campbell later petitioned for a protective order against Schmidt in Alaska, and Schmidt petitioned for one against Campbell on behalf of their child. After a hearing in early December, the superior court denied both petitions because there was not "sufficient proof that a short-term order [was] necessary."
Three days later Campbell filed for a writ of assistance, claiming she had recovered judgment against Schmidt for a house; she requested expedited consideration. On December 21 Campbell filed a motion to modify custody and a request to register the Arizona child custody order. She also filed an expedited motion to enforce a right to visitation during half of winter break. Schmidt opposed the motion.
On January 3, 2022, the Arizona court concluded it no longer had "home state" jurisdiction because "neither parent nor the child reside in Arizona any longer." On January 10 the Alaska court denied expedited consideration because Campbell had not served Schmidt and denied the motion to enforce visitation because it was moot: "the start of the visitation period was already expired by the time process was served." The court also dismissed Campbell's complaint for custody because it had already been decided after trial in Arizona and ordered the clerk's office to register the Arizona child support order. The court then ruled that it would consider the motion to modify custody after registration of the Arizona custody order. The court issued a written order, advising that it would not "simply reconsider the same evidence presented in Arizona" and that Campbell needed to "show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the Arizona custody order was entered."
The court held a hearing on the motion to modify in late April. It denied the motion, finding that Campbell had failed to show a substantial change in circumstances but granting Campbell's request to visit the child on the first weekend in May, as the Arizona court had ordered. But the court ordered that Schmidt's mother supervise the visit.
The court scheduled a status hearing for May 31 and informed both parties. It ordered Campbell to do a urinalysis (UA) and a hair follicle test and to provide the results to the court before the hearing. It also encouraged Campbell to visit the child in early May.
Campbell did not attend the status hearing. The court ordered that Schmidt and Campbell would continue to have "sort of joint legal custody" but that Schmidt had final decision-making authority if they could not agree. The court also modified the visitation schedule that the Arizona court had ordered. It ordered that Campbell's summer visitation would have to be "here in Alaska" and that it would have to be supervised by Schmidt's mother.
Campbell filed three motions for reconsideration of the court's decision in June 2022 and one more in July.[3] The superior court denied each motion, finding that they were "frivolous and are intended to harass." The court also ordered Campbell to "cease and desist from any further such filings." Campbell appeals.
"A trial court has broad discretion in deciding child custody issues."[4] "We will reverse a custody order 'only if the record shows an abuse of discretion or if controlling factual findings are clearly erroneous.' "[5] "A factual finding is 'clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with the definite impression that a mistake has been made.' "[6] "The court's broad discretion extends to its determination whether, following an evidentiary hearing, the moving party has proven a substantial change in circumstances, meaning one that affects the child's welfare."[7] We review procedural decisions and visitation orders for abuse of discretion.[8]
"Whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard is a question of law that we review de novo, 'adopting the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason and policy.' "[9] We also "review de novo the question of whether a judge appears biased, which is assessed under an objective standard."[10]
Campbell lists 18 issues in her notice of appeal; we group them into 5 claims.[11] She argues that the superior court erred by not modifying the custody order and denying summer visitation; by "[o]verlooking and denying [her] writ of assistance"; and "by not rescheduling the [May status] hearing." Campbell also argues that the superior court discriminated against her and that it should have issued a written order. Schmidt urges us to affirm the superior court's decisions.
Campbell argues that the superior court erred by not modifying the custody order. She appears to argue that the court failed to "make a decision based on the merits and the child's best interests" and instead the "judge ma[de] a decision by default."
"The superior court may not grant a motion to modify a child custody order unless it finds a substantial change of circumstances."[12] "The moving parent bears the burden of showing a 'significant or substantial' change in circumstances."[13]"Generally, superior courts must compare current circumstances to a 'baseline' at the time of the most recent custody order . . . to determine if modification is warranted."[14]"If current circumstances are similar to those at the time of the most recent custody order, no substantial change has occurred and the court must decline the modification request."[15]
The superior court found that Campbell failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the Arizona court issued its order. The court reviewed the Arizona order, remarking on its attention to detail, including its best interests analysis and detailed findings of fact. The Arizona court was "particularly concerned about [Campbell's] move to Texas, because the Temporary Orders filed on January 27, 2021 specifically prohibited relocation without agreement of the parties or by Court Order." It also found that Campbell acted "unreasonably" when she demanded to see the child "around 4:00 a.m." on February 6, 2021. The Arizona court concluded that awarding Schmidt physical custody and moving the child to live with him in Alaska is in the child's best interests. The Alaska court agreed with the Arizona court that the evidence "really strongly support[ed]" awarding custody to Schmidt.
Many of the issues Campbell raises relate to the Arizona court proceedings.[16] And the evidence relating to one of Campbell's arguments appears to...
To continue reading
Request your trial