Aksamit v. Krahn
Court of Appeals of Arizona
227 P.3d 475 (2010)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Patricia Aksamit (plaintiff) sought a divorce from her husband, Greg Krahn (defendant). Aksamit and Krahn had two minor children. Both Aksamit and Krahn sought sole legal custody with parenting time for the other parent. The trial judge appointed a best-interests attorney. A best-interests attorney is a court-appointed attorney who acts in a representative capacity and may urge the court to reach a decision based upon the evidence presented, but who may not submit a report into evidence or testify at trial. The best-interests attorney was not a sworn witness, but the trial court requested a report, which the attorney provided. The attorney detailed a series of interactions and interviews with Aksamit, Krahn, and the children. The attorney recommended that Aksamit be granted sole legal custody and that Krahn receive parenting time. The court relied heavily upon the attorney’s opinions in making its custody determination and followed the attorney’s recommendations. Greg appealed, alleging that it was improper for the trial court to consider the best-interests attorney’s report in making its custody determination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.