Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The parties in this case have two minor children. Following their divorce in 2018, the mother was awarded primary residential responsibility based on agreement, and the father received limited parenting time. In February 2021, the father sought primary residential responsibility, leading to the appointment of a parenting investigator and subsequent hearings. Ultimately, the district court awarded equal residential responsibility, but after appellate review, the judgment was reversed due to insufficient findings. In February 2024, the father again moved for increased parenting time, which led to another evidentiary hearing. During this hearing, the court conducted an in chambers interview with one child over the mother’s objection and considered evidence from a prior parenting investigator’s report.The District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, initially denied the father’s request for primary residential responsibility but granted an evidentiary hearing to consider modifying parenting time. After the hearing, the court found sufficient grounds for modification based on the mother’s interference with the parenting plan, the children’s desire to spend more time with their father, and uncertain exchange times. The court ordered increased parenting time for the father. The mother objected to the in chambers interview and the use of the parenting investigator’s report, arguing procedural errors and lack of proper notice.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s finding that a material change in circumstances justified modifying parenting time. However, it reversed the district court’s actions in conducting an in chambers interview without both parents’ consent and considering the parenting investigator’s report without notice and opportunity for cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that both errors were not harmless and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to conduct a new best interests analysis without considering the improperly admitted evidence, or to hold a supplemental evidentiary hearing if requested. View "Goetz v. Goetz" on Justia Law

The parties, following their divorce, entered into a stipulated judgment that set out how they would share expenses for their three children, including extracurricular activities, school events, and medical costs. The judgment required equal sharing for listed traditional activities, certain forms of communication about new or related expenses, and equal division of out-of-pocket medical expenses. Communication provisions specified that if a question was posed through their shared application and no response was received within five days, consent was presumed.After the judgment, the plaintiff moved the District Court of Stutsman County to hold the defendant in contempt for failing to pay his share of these expenses. The court found the defendant in contempt, rejecting his arguments about the form of communication required and about whether certain expenses were his responsibility. The court held line-by-line hearings on the expenses, found the plaintiff had met her burden for most items, and awarded remedial sanctions and attorney’s fees. This included some expenses that had not been previously submitted to the defendant, some for which there was no clear obligation under the judgment, and mileage for transporting children to therapy. The defendant appealed, also arguing that the plaintiff’s motion was frivolous and that he was entitled to his own attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant in contempt. However, it reversed the award of remedial sanctions and attorney’s fees in part, finding that some sanctions were for expenses already paid, not required under the judgment, or not properly supported by findings. It remanded for further proceedings to recalculate the proper amount of sanctions and attorney’s fees. The District Court’s order was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Bedgar v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the primary residential responsibility and parenting time for a child born in 2024 to two unmarried parents. The father sought an interim order for custody, and after several reschedulings, a hearing was held where only the father's counsel and the mother's attorney appeared; the mother herself was absent. Subsequently, the court granted the father primary residential responsibility and gave the mother supervised parenting time. The mother’s attorney later withdrew, and the court set further hearings, but it was unclear if the mother received proper notice of these dates.When the mother failed to appear at the scheduled pretrial conference, the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, sanctioned her by barring her from presenting any evidence at trial, except regarding her income for child support purposes. At trial, she appeared without counsel and was only allowed to testify about her income, while the father and his mother provided testimony on other issues. The district court then entered judgment awarding primary residential responsibility to the father, continuing supervised parenting time for the mother, and ordering her to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing she was denied due process due to improper service and that the sanction was excessive.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It declined to address the mother’s due process arguments, finding her appellate briefs did not comply with procedural rules. However, it held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an evidentiary sanction that prevented the court from considering evidence relevant to the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the monetary sanction for attorney’s fees but reversed the evidentiary sanction, remanding for a new trial where sanctions, if imposed, must not interfere with the court’s ability to evaluate the child’s best interests. View "Kostelecky v. Erickson" on Justia Law

A 76-year-old man petitioned to adopt a 40-year-old woman whom he had known for six years. The parties participated in evidentiary hearings, and a court-appointed investigator prepared a report. Testimony revealed inconsistencies regarding the stated purpose of the adoption, particularly concerning the petitioner’s claim that the adoption would allow the adoptee to care for him, despite evidence that the adoptee’s health issues prevented her from working. The court also noted that the adoptee was unaware adoption would sever her legal relationship with her mother, with whom she lived and received financial support. Additionally, concerns arose regarding the petitioner’s mild cognitive impairment and unaccounted trust distributions.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, reviewed the petition and evidence. The court found that the adoption was not in the best interests of the adoptee, considering the potential negative impact on her relationship with her biological mother, possible contentious inheritance issues, and inconsistencies in the petitioner’s stated goals. The court also considered the medical evidence and concluded the doctor’s report did not sufficiently address the petitioner’s cognitive capacity or awareness of the adoption’s implications. Based on these findings, the court denied the adoption petition.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota applied the clearly erroneous standard to the district court’s factual findings and reviewed the denial of the adoption decree for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, nor did the court abuse its discretion or misapply the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the adoption petition. View "In re Adoption of K.J.K." on Justia Law

A father with a high monthly income was ordered to pay $5,000 per month in child support for his minor child, which included a $1,500 upward deviation above the presumptive guideline amount. The deviation was based on the child’s significant disabling conditions and the father’s substantial income and assets. In addition, the father was required to maintain a $750,000 life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation. The mother documented considerable ongoing expenses for the child’s developmental and medical needs, including frequent travel for therapy and care. The District Court of Eddy County initially entered this support order, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota found the lower court’s findings insufficient to support the upward deviation and remanded for more explicit findings and reconsideration of the life insurance amount. On remand, the district court provided additional findings, detailing the child’s medical needs, the family’s prior standard of living, and specific expenses justifying the deviation. The court again found the deviation in the child’s best interest due to her lifelong health conditions and the desire for her to maintain a standard of living similar to that before the divorce. The court attributed $750 per month to the child’s medical needs and $750 per month to maintaining her standard of living, and reinstated the $750,000 life insurance requirement. Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court’s findings were explicit and supported by evidence. The court affirmed that the upward deviation in child support and the life insurance requirement were in the child’s best interest and not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s order in all respects. View "Kingstone v. Kingstone" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with terrorizing—domestic violence, a class C felony, after an incident involving his ex-wife, who is also the mother of his minor child. The district court imposed a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the victim, initially for thirty days. After the defendant pled guilty, the court sentenced him to two years, including three days to serve (with credit for time served) and two years of supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the court extended the no-contact order for two years, prohibiting all direct or indirect contact with the victim, including communication relevant to their minor child.After sentencing, the defendant requested an exception to allow necessary communications with the victim regarding court-ordered parenting time with their child. The district court declined, stating the defendant was not prohibited from having contact with his child but failed to provide any method for arranging parenting time, given the victim’s residential responsibility and the communication restrictions. The defendant appealed the judgment and the order extending the no-contact provision.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that, although the district court acted within statutory limits and did not rely on any impermissible factor (so the sentence was not illegal), it abused its discretion by failing to provide a means for the defendant to arrange contact with his child or to explain why no such method was allowed. The court determined that, under these circumstances, the blanket prohibition on contact with the victim—including for purposes of exercising parental rights—was arbitrary and not the result of a reasoned decision. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the criminal judgment and the order extending the order prohibiting contact and remanded for resentencing, instructing the district court to consider alternatives that would permit the defendant to exercise his parental rights. View "State v. Maher" on Justia Law

The case concerns divorced parents who share a minor child. After their 2019 divorce, the mother was awarded primary residential responsibility, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. In 2024, the father moved to modify the custody arrangement, citing a material change in circumstances and seeking joint, and later, primary residential responsibility. Following hearings in 2025, the District Court of Burleigh County granted the father primary residential responsibility, established a parenting plan for the mother, and entered a second amended judgment. The mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by modifying custody without finding a material change in circumstances, violated her due process rights, improperly delegated authority to the child and a counselor regarding parenting time, and suspended child support without adequate findings. She also asserted cumulative errors and alleged parental alienation. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court’s findings on the material change of circumstances, best interests factors, and award of primary residential responsibility were not clearly erroneous. The court determined that most of the mother’s arguments were inadequately briefed and thus were not considered on appeal, except for her claim regarding the delegation of parenting time authority. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court improperly delegated its authority over parenting time to both the minor child and her therapist, allowing them to determine the conditions and occurrence of the mother’s contact with the child. The court found that the district court failed to provide sufficient findings or a clear link between the mother’s conduct and potential harm to the child that would justify such a restriction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to parenting time. View "Vetter v. Vetter" on Justia Law

David Hughes and Dana Waters were in a relationship beginning in 2016 while living in Washington. During their relationship, Hughes raised Waters’s son, C.H., as his own, and later they had another son, D.H. Following their separation, they shared custody on a rotating basis. Hughes moved to North Dakota in late 2020, and the children visited him there during holidays and summers. In April 2023, Waters moved with the children to California. That summer, Hughes flew the children to North Dakota for vacation and later informed Waters he would not return them, citing concerns for their safety.After Hughes’s decision to keep the children, both parties initiated legal proceedings: Waters filed a complaint in California on August 9, 2023, but did not serve Hughes until October 20, 2023. Hughes began a child custody action in North Dakota by serving Waters on August 30, 2023. The California court issued ex parte orders for the return of the children, first claiming emergency jurisdiction, then issuing a non-temporary order, both before Hughes was served. The North Dakota District Court of McKenzie County held a hearing, invited arguments on jurisdiction, and communicated with the California court. Eventually, California transferred its case to Washington, although there was no evidence of a pending Washington action.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The court held that neither California nor North Dakota was the children’s “home state,” and no other state had a pending child custody action or declined jurisdiction. North Dakota properly assumed jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-12(1)(d). The court affirmed the district court’s order granting primary residential responsibility of D.H. and C.H. to Hughes and rejected Waters’s additional challenges. View "Hughes v. Waters" on Justia Law

Ashley Cull and Andrew Cull were married in 2013 and have two children, born in 2016 and 2019. After initiating a divorce in 2021, a stipulated judgment was entered in January 2022, with Andrew awarded primary residential responsibility for the children. An amended judgment in March 2022 reaffirmed this arrangement. In February 2025, Ashley filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility, arguing that material changes had occurred since the prior order which warranted a shift in custody to her. She submitted declarations from herself and her parents, alleging that Andrew delegated parenting to his mother, lacked routine in his home, and made unsafe decisions affecting the children.The Northeast Judicial District Court, Pembina County, reviewed Ashley’s motion and supporting documents, along with Andrew’s fourteen counter-declarations. The district court denied Ashley’s motion, concluding that she failed to establish a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, as there was no material change in circumstances nor evidence that modification was necessary to serve the children’s best interests. The court found much of Ashley’s evidence was not based on firsthand knowledge or was not competent, and that extended family involvement and Andrew’s occupation as a farmer were known factors at the time of the original custody determination.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s order de novo. It held that Ashley Cull did not provide competent evidence of a material change in circumstances or show that modification was necessary for the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to modify primary residential responsibility, concluding that the statutory requirements for a prima facie case were not met. View "Cull v. Cull" on Justia Law

Kyle Wardner and Tamara Porath were the parents of a minor child, E.M.M.W., who was born in 2017 while the parents resided in different countries—Wardner in North Dakota and Tamara Porath in Canada. After Tamara Porath’s death in November 2020, her sister, Rebecca Porath, sought legal guardianship of the child in Canada. Wardner opposed the application, and the Canadian court ultimately awarded him primary residential responsibility for E.M.M.W., who then moved to North Dakota. In May 2022, both parties stipulated to a final Canadian order that established Wardner’s custody and the Poraths’ visitation rights. Wardner registered this order in North Dakota in May 2024.Subsequently, Wardner filed a motion in the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, seeking to modify the Canadian visitation order. After a hearing in January 2025, during which both sides testified, the district court denied Wardner’s motion. The court found that Wardner had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances required for modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, the statute it applied to the case. The Poraths also argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction but conceded North Dakota was the child’s home state.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and that it erred by applying the wrong statutory standard. The Supreme Court determined that N.D.C.C. § 14-09.4-14, governing modification of nonparent visitation, was the correct statute to apply to Wardner’s motion, rather than the statute for modifying primary residential responsibility. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions for further proceedings under the proper law. View "Wardner v. Porath" on Justia Law