Chavre v. Chavre

598 P.2d 81, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 535
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 3, 1979
DocketNo. 3349
StatusPublished

This text of 598 P.2d 81 (Chavre v. Chavre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chavre v. Chavre, 598 P.2d 81, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 535 (Ala. 1979).

Opinions

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

In this child custody divorce proceeding we have reviewed the trial court’s findings of fact and find the following findings to be clearly erroneous:

Finding XII, that Mrs. Chavre’s adulterous relationship caused emotional and physical detriment to the children.

Finding XIII, that Mrs. Chavre has a problem controlling her drinking and that it interferes with her responsibilities toward the children.

Finding XV, that Mrs. Chavre is an unfit parent. The evidence cited to support these findings is both too limited in scope and trivial in effect to overcome the contrary evidence that during the entire lives of the children, except for a short period immediately preceding the divorce, Mrs. Chavre has provided for the day-to-day needs of the children, usually without assistance from Mr. Chavre, and has discharged her duties as a parent with appropriate competence and affection.

Finding XXI, that it is in the best interest of the children that they be placed in the custody of Mr. Chavre is based in part on the foregoing erroneous findings. It therefore must be vacated.

We remand for a determination as to which parent should be granted custody. In reaching this disposition we do not express any view as to what the ultimate outcome should be, only that it should not be based on findings for which there is insufficient evidentiary support. If the trial court finds the existing record inadequate it may reopen the testimony and, in its discretion, it may appoint a guardian ad litem for the children pursuant to AS 09.-65.130. Finally, we recommend to the trial court that in making its ultimate finding it specifically advert to the factors listed as relevant in AS 09.55.205.1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

[83]*83BURKE, J., not participating.

BOOCHEVER, J., dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Horton v. Horton
519 P.2d 1131 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)
Bonjour v. Bonjour
566 P.2d 667 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1977)
Horutz v. Horutz
560 P.2d 397 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1977)
Lacy v. Lacy
553 P.2d 928 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 P.2d 81, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavre-v-chavre-alaska-1979.