Crook v. Crook
Annotate this CaseGregory Crook (Father) and Janet Crook (Mother) were divorced in 2011. The final judgment and decree of divorce, which expressly incorporated the parties' settlement agreement, awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two minor children; it designated Father as the primary physical custodian, and provided that, with the exception of specified holiday and summer visitation, the children would live with each parent on alternating weeks. The Decree included a deviation from the statutorily prescribed amount of child support based on the parents' agreement that "neither party shall pay child support to the other," which deviation the superior court found to be in the children's best interests. A few months later, Mother filed a petition for modification of child custody, asking, inter alia, that she be given primary physical custody of the children and that there be an award of child support commensurate with the established statutory guidelines. Father moved to dismiss. The superior court entered a final order granting Wife's petition for modification; the parties retained joint legal custody, but Wife was given primary physical custody and Husband was awarded limited, but escalating visitation. With respect to child support, the court expressly determined the total basic child support obligation, but made no findings as to each parent's "adjusted child support obligation" or each parent's "presumptive amount of child support." The Supreme Court granted Mother's application for discretionary appeal to determine whether the superior court erred in applying a "parenting time deviation" to Father's "presumptive amount of child support" on the cited bases of "shared custody" and "history of the parties." Because the superior court awarded a discretionary downward deviation in the amount of child support, but failed to comply with the appropriate statutory requirements, the final order must be reversed and the case remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.