An Alaska judge's decision allowing public access to proceedings in a custody battle over Sarah Palin's grandson could encourage her to make a deal with the child's father rather than risk an “onslaught” by “scandal-hungry tabloids.”

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston

Palin's personal attorney, who is not a family law specialist, is representing her daughter Bristol in a petition for custody of one-year-old Tripp Johnston. She based her hopes of keeping the case private on an Alaska law which provides that a child custody proceeding may be closed to the public “if it is in the best interests of the child.”

“If this custody case does not satisfy the criteria set forth in the statute, then no case would,” the Palin attorney, Thomas V. Van Flein of Anchorage, said in a motion for closure under Alaska Statute 25.20.120.

In a Dec. 23 ruling, Palmer Superior Court Judge Kari C. Kristiansen noted that “Alaska courts have not directly addressed this statute.” But she disregarded the anti-media rantings in the motion and –- relying in part on a New York precedent involving actor Macaulay Culkin -- concluded that closure of Tripp's case was not warranted.

“The plaintiff has not made any argument that the anticipated publicity in this case has or will actually harm the child in any manner,” Kristiansen said.

Tripp is the son of Bristol Palin and her ex-boyfriend Levi Johnston, who has kept busy since breaking up with her by dishing out dirt on her mother and posing for Playgirl magazine. Bristol's custody petition seeks to formalize an informal arrangement whereby she has full custody of the child with Johnston having only visitation rights.

“[T]here is evidence that Levi is not yet mature enough to take on significant parental responsibilities,” it says.

In what may be Alaska's first celebrity child custody case, Van Flein filed the petition under seal Nov. 4 along with the motion for closure. “No good could result to the child by an onslaught of media attending these proceedings or com[b]ing through the court records,” the motion warns.

Borrowing heavily from Sarah Palin's anti-media playbook, it says Bristol Palin would like to avoid having statements “preserved for all posterity in artfully edited news articles aimed at polarizing the parties and maximizing periodical sales” and “scurrilous scandal publications like Vanity Fair or the National Enquirer will pay money for falsehoods or any statement coming from these proceedings.”

For his part, Johnston has requested an award of joint custody. “There is no evidence suggesting Levi is unable to perform his role as father and take over half of the child rearing responsibilities in this case,” he insists.

He also claimed in an affidavit that he would not “feel protected against Sarah Palin” in a closed proceeding. “I think a public case might go a long way in reducing Sarah Palin's instinct to attack and allow the real parties in this litigation, Bristol and I, to work things out more peacefully than we could if there is any more meddling from Sarah Palin,” he said.

If Judge Kristiansen had ruled that the proceedings should be closed, Johnston would have been unable to use publicity as a bargaining chip. Now, if Sarah Palin is as concerned about protecting her grandson from the media as she says she is, her only recourse may be to reach a private settlement with Johnston as soon as possible.

In the Culkin case, a New York judge said a party seeking closure of a custody proceeding must show that “actual, substantial harm, emotional or physical, will result to the children” from public access. Brentrup v. Culkin, 635 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (1995).

Kristiansen applied that standard, finding the New York court's discussion of the open courtroom policy “persuasive in this case.”

By Matthew Heller
1/2/10