Curtiss v. Curtiss

October 18, 2016 by Justia

Spencer and Rebecca Curtiss were divorced and had two minor children. Spencer was awarded primary residential custody of the children by a district court in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Spencer moved to North Dakota in 2009 and Rebecca moved to North Dakota a year later. In February 2011, Spencer was convicted and incarcerated at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. In March 2011, Rebecca moved the North Dakota district court to amend the divorce judgment to provide her with primary residential responsibility of the children. The district court granted the motion and awarded Spencer supervised parenting time every other weekend at the penitentiary. The district court issued a Second Amended Judgment modifying Spencer's child support obligation in October 2013. In July 2015, Spencer moved the district court to enforce the existing judgment regarding his parenting time, arguing Rebecca was not bringing the children to the penitentiary to visit him. In November 2015, Rebecca moved the district court to modify the Second Amended Judgment to suspend Spencer's parenting time while he was incarcerated. In support of her motion, Rebecca argued that she and the children's therapist believed any visits to the penitentiary were harmful to the children. After a hearing, the district court entered a Third Amended Judgment ordering that, while Spencer was incarcerated, the children were not required to visit him, but if the children wanted to, the parenting time had to be supervised by a professional such as a counselor or a therapist. The district court also ordered Spencer could set up telephone calls and letters through the children's therapist, and that all communication had to be supervised by a professional. Spencer moved the district court to reconsider. The district court denied Spencer Curtiss's motion. Spencer appealed the Third Amended Judgment. After review, the Supreme Court found that the district court made no findings as to whether a material change in circumstances occurred, whether suspended visitation was necessary because visitation was likely to endanger the children, and whether modification of the Second Amended Judgment was necessary to serve the best interests of the children. As a result, the Court reversed the district court and remanded with instructions that it make specific findings. View "Curtiss v. Curtiss" on Justia Law