Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a married couple, both dual citizens of the United States and Sudan, who were married in Sudan in 2001 and lived in multiple countries during their marriage. After relocating to Fargo, North Dakota, the relationship deteriorated, and the wife obtained a domestic violence protection order against the husband. The wife subsequently initiated divorce proceedings in North Dakota. The husband moved to dismiss the action, arguing that he had already obtained a divorce certificate in Sudan by pronouncing talaq and that the North Dakota district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to this prior foreign divorce.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, denied the husband's motion to dismiss, finding that it would not exercise comity to recognize the Sudanese divorce certificate due to lack of notice and due process for the wife. After trial, the court found evidence of domestic violence and coercive control, awarded the wife primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making authority regarding the children, and denied the husband parenting time. The court also distributed marital property under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, awarded the wife spousal support and attorney’s fees, and entered a divorce judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, that the decision not to recognize the Sudanese divorce certificate was not an abuse of discretion, and that the rulings on property division, spousal support, and attorney’s fees were not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court also imposed a $1,000 sanction on the husband for improper legal citations and remanded to the district court for determination of whether an additional award of attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal would result in undue financial hardship to the husband. View "Ali v. Osman" on Justia Law

A divorced couple with one minor child had an initial judgment and an amended judgment entered in 2022, awarding the mother primary residential responsibility and setting the father’s child support obligation based on his high income at that time. In August 2024, the father moved to modify residential responsibility, amend the parenting plan, and reduce his child support after changing employment to a lower-paying job in December 2024. The parties stipulated at the hearing that they would provide any additional income information requested by the State Child Support Enforcement Agency for recalculation of child support.After the hearing, the district court initially recalculated child support based only on the father’s new paystubs, setting a lower obligation. The mother moved for reconsideration, providing evidence suggesting the father was self-employed with an ownership interest in his new employer, and submitted additional financial documents. The court ultimately ordered the father to produce tax returns and business records. The State calculated two potential child support amounts: one based on the father’s current income, and one imputing income based on his prior higher earnings. The district court then adopted the higher, imputed income figure, finding the father had voluntarily left his previous employment for a job with significantly less pay.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing supplemental evidence, as the parties had stipulated to provide additional financial information after the hearing. However, the Supreme Court determined that the district court failed to make necessary findings on whether the father’s employment change was made for the purpose of reducing his child support obligation, as required for income imputation under North Dakota law. The Supreme Court affirmed the use of supplemental evidence, but reversed and remanded for further findings regarding the intent behind the employment change and for an explanation of the effective date chosen for the modified child support. View "Childers v. Childers" on Justia Law

The case centers on a dispute over the parenting arrangement for a minor child, C.F.B., who has significant special needs, including Level 3 Autism Spectrum Disorder and other disabilities. The mother, who has been the child’s primary caregiver, sought primary residential responsibility and proposed a graduated parenting plan that initially limited the father, who had moved out of state and had limited recent contact with the child, to supervised parenting time. The father, representing himself, agreed to the mother’s primary responsibility but requested unsupervised parenting time.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over a trial in which the court excluded the father’s medical evidence due to discovery violations. The court credited testimony from the mother and her own mother about the child’s extensive care needs and found the father’s testimony untrustworthy and unpersuasive. The court adopted the mother’s proposed graduated parenting plan, which included multiple phases with supervision and professional assessments as prerequisites for progression, and awarded her primary decision-making authority and the right to obtain a passport for the child.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s findings and orders. It held that the factual findings supporting supervised parenting time, decision-making authority, and expense-sharing were not clearly erroneous and affirmed those provisions, as well as the denial of the father’s post-judgment motions. However, the Supreme Court determined that the advancement criteria for Phases 3 and 4 of the parenting plan impermissibly delegated judicial authority to unnamed professionals without objective standards or means for judicial review. The court reversed these provisions and remanded for the establishment of objective criteria or judicial oversight. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of $500 in attorney’s fees to the mother and denied her request for appellate attorney’s fees. View "Rustan v. Ball" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two former spouses over the custody of their children and related attorney’s fees. After their 2021 divorce, the parties shared equal residential responsibility for their two children. In 2023, following an incident at school and a note written by one child, Kayla Reierson withheld the children from Dustin Reierson despite a social worker’s finding of no abuse or neglect. Both parties filed motions with the district court. Prior to a full hearing, they settled most issues through a partial stipulation for an amended judgment, expressly reserving the issues of contempt and attorney’s fees for the court to decide.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, held a two-day evidentiary hearing. It found Kayla Reierson in contempt for intentionally withholding the children and making a false allegation of harm. The court awarded Dustin Reierson attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,731.73—ten percent of his total fees—finding it was impossible to distinguish fees incurred for the false allegation from those incurred for other litigation. Notice of the contempt order was filed August 26, 2025, and an amended judgment was entered November 3, 2025, incorporating the contempt order and fee award. Dustin Reierson filed his notice of appeal on November 25, 2025.The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded the appeal of the contempt order was untimely because it was not filed within sixty days as required by statute. The court further held the appeal of the attorney’s fee award was timely, as that portion was not subject to the same strict deadline. It determined Dustin Reierson had not waived his right to appeal the attorney’s fee award, and affirmed the district court’s award, finding no abuse of discretion. Kayla Reierson’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal was denied. The contempt order appeal was dismissed; the attorney’s fee award was affirmed. View "Reierson v. Reierson" on Justia Law

The parties divorced by stipulated judgment, with the judgment awarding Jesse Clooten the marital home and requiring him to remove Stephanie Clooten’s name from the mortgage within ninety days. The judgment also made Jesse responsible for refinancing costs and an expected tax liability. Over a year after the deadline, Stephanie’s name remained on the mortgage. She filed motions for contempt and for redistribution of property. At an evidentiary hearing, Jesse admitted to missing the deadline, not promptly requesting necessary documents, and not completing the removal process even after Stephanie provided the needed signature. He offered no supporting bank documentation for his explanations or claimed obstacles.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, found Jesse in contempt, determining he intentionally disobeyed the court order at least since the day after receiving the signed certificate of occupancy. The court found his justifications unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence. For sanctions, the court ordered Jesse to pay Stephanie’s attorney’s fees, the difference between her rent and a hypothetical mortgage payment due to her inability to purchase a home, and the amount representing lost principal reduction she would have accrued. The court denied her claim for home-value escalation as it was based solely on unverified Zillow data. On the motion to redistribute property, the court declined to rule, citing the lack of a final tax return, and directed the parties to cooperate to complete and file the return before considering further action.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the contempt order, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Jesse in contempt or in the sanctions imposed, as its findings were supported by the record and rationally determined. The court dismissed the appeal from the redistribution order, concluding it was not a final, appealable order as it did not dispose of the motion. View "Clooten v. Clooten" on Justia Law

Donna Berger and Eugene Berger divorced in 2022 after entering a stipulated marital dissolution agreement. The agreement required Donna Berger to make property equalization payments to Eugene Berger through her North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System pension, with specific monthly amounts over a twenty-year period. Because NDPERS could not accommodate the payment structure, Donna Berger arranged alternative direct payments. Eugene Berger later sought to modify the property distribution, asking the court to change the payment amounts and structure, while Donna Berger argued her alternative arrangement complied with the judgment.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, first reviewed Eugene Berger’s motion to modify the property distribution in July 2024. The court found that Donna Berger had complied with the judgment by establishing direct deposit forms from NDPERS to Eugene Berger and denied Eugene Berger’s motion. He did not appeal this decision. In March 2025, Eugene Berger filed a new motion to compel compliance with the judgment, arguing the alternative payment arrangement was insufficient because it lacked irrevocable payments. The case was reassigned to a new judge, who found the motion to compel was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel and granted the motion, ruling Donna Berger had not complied because the payments were revocable. The court also denied Donna Berger’s request for attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that res judicata barred the district court from considering Eugene Berger’s motion to compel, as the issue of compliance with the judgment had been conclusively resolved in the earlier proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to compel and remanded for the district court to reconsider Donna Berger’s request for attorney’s fees. View "Berger v. Berger" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were married in 2013 and separated in 2023, sharing three school-age children. The marital home, located on the husband’s family farmstead in Pleasant Lake, North Dakota, was occupied by the wife and children after separation, while the husband moved to Rugby, North Dakota. The wife initiated divorce proceedings seeking primary residential responsibility for the children, and the husband counterclaimed for either primary or equal residential responsibility. Both parties submitted proposed parenting plans, with the husband also presenting an alternative plan for extended summer parenting time in the event he was not awarded primary responsibility. The husband additionally sought the marital home, proposing alternative asset distributions.After a bench trial, the District Court of Benson County awarded the wife primary residential responsibility, denied the husband extended summer parenting time, and awarded the marital home to the wife without detailed explanation. The husband appealed. In a prior decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, instructing the district court to provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions on residential responsibility, parenting time, and property distribution. On remand, the district court supplemented its findings but again awarded primary residential responsibility and the marital home to the wife and denied extended summer parenting time, offering explanations that the Supreme Court found inconsistent and insufficient.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court failed to adequately follow its prior mandate, as the supplemental findings were inconsistent with earlier findings and lacked specific explanations for key decisions, especially regarding summer parenting time and the marital home’s distribution. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings before a different judge, directing the new judge to provide detailed findings on residential responsibility, summer parenting time, and property distribution, and to promptly address proposals for extended summer parenting time. View "Shively v. Shively" on Justia Law

Three children were removed multiple times from the home of their parents, S.S. and T.C., due to concerns about drug use and domestic violence. Initially, two children were removed in 2018, and all three children were subsequently placed in and out of care between 2018 and 2023. After a guardianship arrangement expired in 2023, law enforcement again found evidence of drug use in S.S.’s home, leading to another removal of the children in early 2024. The children were placed in the care of the Mountrail McKenzie Human Service Zone (MMHSZ).The State petitioned in 2025 to terminate the parental rights of both S.S. and T.C. Following a trial, the Juvenile Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, found that the children were in need of protection and had been in care for the statutory number of nights required under North Dakota law. The juvenile court issued an order terminating S.S.’s parental rights. S.S. appealed, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion by not making a specific finding that reasonable efforts were made to reunify him with his children.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that, under the relevant statutes, a specific finding on reasonable efforts to reunify is not required at the time of termination of parental rights when the statutory criteria of need for protection and number of nights in care are met. The court further concluded that the juvenile court’s findings demonstrated sufficient consideration of the efforts made by social services and that its decision to terminate S.S.’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order. View "Interest of W.S." on Justia Law

A dispute arose concerning the residential responsibility and decision-making authority for a young child, M.R.M.-B., born to two unmarried parents, Monkman and Binney. After an incident in which Monkman withheld the child from Binney and the child was found with bruising and signs of neglect, Cass County Human Service Zone removed the child from both parents and placed her with the Hackmanns, who served as foster parents for approximately two years. Following the juvenile court’s decision to return the child to her parents, the Hackmanns sought to intervene and obtain residential responsibility, asserting they were psychological parents. Meanwhile, Binney and Monkman filed competing motions regarding residential responsibility and support.The District Court of Cass County first denied, then later granted, the Hackmanns’ motion to intervene, determining that the Uniform Nonparent Custody and Visitation Act (N.D.C.C. ch. 14-09.4) was not the exclusive means for nonparents to seek custody, and that an equitable claim as psychological parents was cognizable. After hearings, the district court awarded the Hackmanns primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making authority for the child, subject to Monkman’s supervised parenting time and Binney’s unsupervised time. Monkman appealed, challenging the award to the Hackmanns, the restriction on his parenting time, and the calculation of child support.The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09.4-02(3), a nonparent whose relationship with a child is based solely on foster parent status may not be found to be a psychological parent. It found the Hackmanns’ relationship with M.R.M.-B. was solely as foster parents and that the district court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed the amended judgment, denied the Hackmanns’ request for attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Interest of M.R.M." on Justia Law

B.S. filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order against Carlos Lopez-Rangel on behalf of herself and the parties’ two minor children, alleging that Lopez-Rangel sexually assaulted her in her home. B.S. provided testimony and physical evidence of the alleged assaults, including medical findings and photographs of injuries. She also noted that the children were present in the home during the incidents but did not know if they were awake or aware of what had occurred. At the time, Lopez-Rangel faced related criminal charges, and no-contact orders were in place to protect B.S. and the children.The District Court of Dunn County, Southwest Judicial District, first issued a temporary protection order, then, after a hearing, entered a domestic violence protection order in favor of B.S. and the two minor children, with the order designated to last for an unlimited duration. The district court found that domestic violence had been committed against B.S. but made no specific findings of harm or imminent harm to the children. Lopez-Rangel appealed, contesting the inclusion of his children as protected parties and challenging the unlimited duration of the order.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that there was sufficient evidence to support B.S.'s inclusion as a protected party, affirming that portion of the order. However, the court found no evidence of domestic violence directed at or witnessed by the children and therefore reversed their inclusion as protected parties. The court also found the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unlimited duration without sufficient findings, reversed that portion, and remanded for the district court to set a reasonable duration supported by specific findings. View "B.S. v. Lopez-Rangel" on Justia Law