Alaska

Statutory framework; factor structure: 9.

Authority

Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

9

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

yes, (c)(9)

Presumptions in the original survey

DV rebuttable, (g)

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Incompatibility of temperament supports divorce. A distinct dissolution procedure uses incompatibility causing irremediable breakdown, with requirements that differ for joint and individual petitions.

Authority

Alaska Stat. §§ 25.24.050, .200, .220, .400. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.1(c).

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Incompatibility of temperament supports divorce. A distinct dissolution procedure uses incompatibility causing irremediable breakdown, with requirements that differ for joint and individual petitions.

Other grounds and proof conditions

9: failure to consummate, adultery, felony conviction, willful desertion 1 yr, cruel and inhuman treatment, personal indignities, habitual gross drunkenness 1 yr, incurable mental illness with 18 months' confinement, drug addiction

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

The hearing must be at least 30 days after filing under Civil Rule 90.1(c), subject to a good-cause exception.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, AS 25.24.400, ch. 80 SLA 2002

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors with a symmetrical comparison. The modification threshold is identified. No further relocation allocation identified. No general relocation-notice rule identified; order-specific duties may apply.

Authority

Case law (Moeller-Prokosch line, Outwater 2025)

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

ordinary modification threshold; no further relocation allocation identified

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

no relocation-specific statutory or rule distance threshold identified

Effect of silence

No generally applicable deemed-consent procedure identified; custody-order duties remain separate

What the court weighs

Two steps. First, is the move legitimate, meaning not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult? Second, what custody order serves the child's best interests under AS 25.24.150(c), 'with no presumption favoring either parent' (Ott v. Runa, 463 P.3d 180, 185-86 (Alaska 2020), as quoted in Outwater)? A legitimate move cannot be held against the relocating parent. The court must run a 'symmetrical' analysis: assume the move happens, then compare the child's life with each parent in each location, including relational stability. The court may not restrict where a parent lives. It decides only where the child lives. Legal custody is analyzed separately (Moeller-Prokosch I-III, Mengisteab, Outwater).

Who carries the burden

The party seeking modification must show a substantial change in circumstances under AS 25.20.110(a). Outwater treats an anticipated significant relocation as sufficient to reconsider physical custody; legal custody is analyzed separately. The relocation analysis first asks whether the move is legitimate, then determines the child’s best interests without a presumption favoring either parent, using a symmetrical comparison. No general relocation-specific allocation identified beyond these steps.

Notice and safety exceptions

No generally applicable statutory relocation-notice requirement identified. In Mengisteab v. Oates, 425 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2018), the court upheld an illegitimate-motive finding based in part on inadequate notice and contact information to the court and no forwarding address to either the court or the father; it remanded for a symmetrical best-interests analysis. A custody order may contain notice duties.

Which moves trigger the rule

Judge-made, not statutory. A parent's anticipated out-of-state move triggers the analysis. Since Outwater v. Ahmasuk (Alaska August 1, 2025), so does a significant in-state move that makes the existing schedule unworkable (there, Nome to Palmer).

Objections and the effect of silence

No generally applicable statutory or rule procedure identified. The other parent opposes by responding to, or filing, a motion to modify custody under AS 25.20.110(a). No generally applicable objection deadline or consent-by-silence provision identified.

The modification threshold

Yes as to physical custody: a parent's anticipated significant relocation is a substantial change sufficient to consider modifying physical custody (Ott v. Runa (2020), quoted in Outwater). Not automatically as to legal custody, which is analyzed separately (Outwater).

Other qualifications

No separate relocation statute identified. Mengisteab requires a symmetrical best-interests comparison that assumes the relocating parent leaves and considers the child living with each parent, including the effects of moving with that parent or remaining without that parent. The court decides the child’s custody; this does not require awarding custody to the parent who stays.

Burden summary

Modification threshold; further allocation not established

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

No statutory distance threshold identified

Compare parental relocation nationally