Vining v. Renton

Plaintiff-Appellant Ashley Vining appealed a district court amended judgment that granted Defendant-Appellee Michael Renton's motion to modify primary residential responsibility for their child. Appellee argued the district court's decision was in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Appellee's argument that the district court's decision was based on factors other than frustration of parenting time was persuasive: the Court was not convinced the district court failed to try other remedies before ordering a change of primary residential responsibility. Near the beginning of these proceedings, the district court held Appellant in contempt and ordered her to agree to a parenting schedule permitting Appellee substantial parenting time, including overnights. Approximately one week later, Appellee informed the district court Appellant refused to allow him overnight parenting time and submitted a proposed parenting schedule. The district court issued an interim order adopting Appellee's proposed schedule. When the interim order expired, Appellee attempted to continue his parenting time by extending the schedule in the interim order. Appellant refused to allow Appellee to exercise the amount of parenting time he was granted in the interim order until the district court issued an order for continued interim parenting time. Appellant's refusal to allow Appellee overnight visitation after being ordered to so by the district court and her refusal to continue Appellee's parenting time after the order for interim parenting time expired demonstrated that, even after being held in contempt, Appellant was not willing to facilitate a relationship between Appellee and the child. Under these circumstances, the Court was reluctant to conclude the district court did not attempt other remedies before ordering a change of primary residential responsibility.