Generally, we will conclude that a trial court abused its discretion only when we have a definite and firm conviction, after reviewing the whole record, that it erred in its ruling.See Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 586 (Alaska 1999); State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. ex rel. Hawthorne v. Rios, 938 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Alaska 1997); Matthews v. Matthews, 739 P.2d 1298, 1299 (Alaska 1987).VinZant v. Elam, 977 P.2d 84, 86 (Alaska 1999).
FN28. See, e.g., Skinner v. Hagberg, 183 P.3d 486, 490 (Alaska 2008) (citing Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 586 (Alaska 1999)). FN29. Benson v. Benson, 977 P.2d 88, 92 (Alaska 1999) (citing Crayton v. Crayton, 944 P.2d 487, 489 (Alaska 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, although Rule 90.3(a)(4) applies to cases of shared custody, the "caring for a child" exception is not meant to apply to situations like the present one. Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 586 (Alaska 1999) (quoting State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. v. Rios, 938 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Alaska 1997)).See Olmstead v. Ziegler, 42 P.3d 1102, 1103-06 (Alaska 2002) (holding that trial court did not err in finding father with shared custody to be voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed); Lacher v. Lacher, 993 P.2d 413, 417 423-24 (Alaska 1999) (holding that trial court's imputation of income for voluntarily underemployed mother with shared custody was not clearly erroneous).
AS 25.20.050(i).See Rubright v. Arnold , 973 P.2d 580, 583-85 (Alaska 1999) (affirming parentage determination on merits and as sanction in paternity action after putative father refused to comply with genetic testing).We further note that the legislative definition of "biological parent" under AS 18.50.950 of the Vital Statistics Act is a "parent named on the original certificate of birth of an adopted person."
The statute simply states that "[a] child born out of wedlock is legitimated and considered the heir of the putative parent when ... the putative parent is determined by a superior court without jury ... upon sufficient evidence, to be a parent of the child."See Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 583 n.1 (Alaska 1999) (noting Uniform Parentage Act "has not been adopted in Alaska"). UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT § 606 (amended 2002).
See Sanders, 12 P.3d at 769 (“[T]his case is ‘strictly about money’; it does not involve property division, custody or visitation issues.”); Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 581–82 (Alaska 1999) (stating that the case involves only questions of paternity and child support). Aaron also cites our refusal to extend the exception in B.J. v. J.D., but that case is markedly different: it involved the modification of a prior custody judgment and an award of custody to a non-biological parent.
In Rubright v. Arnold, the court held that an award of child support arrearages against an adjudicated father as of the date of the child's birth seven years earlier was proper, although the mother's former husband was the child's legal father before the adjudication of the biological father's paternity. 973 P.2d 580, 581, 586 (Alaska 1999).
The Supreme Court of Iowa granted the husband's interlocutory appeal and ruled that Iowa would now recognize equitable fatherhood, finding: Other cases cited by the chancellor include Hodge v. Hodge, 84 Or.App. 62, 733 P.2d 458, 459 (1987) (estopping wife from raising question of whether husband is biological father of child as basis to prevent him from obtaining custody); Doe v. Doe, 99 Hawai`i 1, 52 P.3d 255, 267 (2002) (collaterally estopping mother from bringing action against alleged father to establish paternity under state statute); In re Marriage of Worcester, 192 Ariz. 24, 960 P.2d 624, 626 (1998) (holding wife not entitled to relief from final judgment on divorce decree because she intentionally misrepresented facts under oath regarding child's parentage); Ohning v. Driskill, 739 N.E.2d 161, 164 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (judicially estopping wife from attacking validity of divorce decree which acknowledged husband as child's father); Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 584 (Alaska 1999) (recognizing that in an appropriate case a mother may be equitably estopped from denying paternity); Ex Parte Presse, 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) (noting that wife barred under res judicata from bringing paternity action when she was party to original divorce and custody judgments); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich.App. 601, 408 N.W.2d 516, 519 (1987) (holding that even though wife may establish non-paternity of husband in divorce action, husband may still acquire parental rights under "equitable parent" theory). we believe equitable parenthood may be established in a proper case by a father who establishes all the following: (1) he was married to the mother when the child is conceived and born; (2) he reasonably believes he is the child's father; (3) he establishes a parental relationship with the child; and (4) shows that judicial recognition of the relationship is in the child's best interest.
Gudschinsky v. Hartill, 815 P.2d 851, 854 (Alaska 1991) (personal representative's fees); In re Estate of Gregory, 487 P.2d 59, 64 (Alaska 1971) (attorney's fees). Rubright v. Arnold, 973 P.2d 580, 585 (Alaska 1999). Bowman v. Blair, 889 P.2d 1069, 1072 n. 5 (Alaska 1995).
Reasoning that this kind of dispute did not closely resemble a divorce action, and that there existed minimal public policy reasons for applying the divorce exception, we held that Rule 82 governed the award of attorney's fees in that case. 973 P.2d 580, 586-87 (Alaska 1999).See id. at 582.