Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

S.P.L. appealed a judgment denying his petition to terminate M.T.’s parental rights and adopt K.M.T. He argued the district court erred in denying his request to terminate M.T.’s parental rights and failing to consider whether M.T.’s consent was required for an adoption proceeding. While the North Dakota Supreme Court did not find the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous, the district court erred in failing to make findings regarding whether M.T.’s consent was required in the adoption proceeding. Judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of K.M.T." on Justia Law

Derek Spitzer appealed a second amended judgment entered after he moved to amend a parenting judgment. Spitzer and Kate Anderson had a child, P.T.S., born in 2009. In 2010 the district court awarded Anderson primary residential responsibility and ordered Spitzer to pay child support. In 2013 Spitzer moved to amend the judgment and requested primary residential responsibility. The court awarded joint residential responsibility, but Spitzer had slightly more than 50% of the parenting time. The parties agreed to eliminate Anderson’s child support obligation based on Spitzer’s income and their agreement to share P.T.S.’s expenses. In this appeal, Spitzer argued the district court erred in awarding Anderson primary residential responsibility, claiming there was not a material change in circumstances that adversely affected P.T.S. or resulted in a general decline of P.T.S.’s condition. To this the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed judgment. View "Anderson v. Spitzer, et al." on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed after the district court entered a third amended judgment in this divorce action from Kayla Rath (now Jones). After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion in limine; in conducting the hearing; and in allowing written, but not oral, closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his requests for new trial and recusal, and affirmed the third amended judgment. However, the Supreme Court determined the district court erred in denying his demand for a change of judge and erred in referring Jones’s motion for a vexatious litigant determination under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 to the presiding judge, who had previously been disqualified in this case. The Court therefore vacated a May 2021 order determining Mark Rath a vexatious litigant. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that Rath did not meet his burden to show his constitutional challenge to N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 had merit, so the Court exercised authority under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(7) to determine Mark Rath was a vexatious litigant under the rule. View "Rath v. Rath, et al." on Justia Law

Bryon Updike appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the district court erred when it calculated child support and when it distributed the parties’ assets and debts. April Updike cross appealed, arguing the court erred when it failed to include a commencement date for the child support obligation. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not err when it imputed income to Bryon for purposes of child support, and the court’s property and debt distribution was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court modified the judgment to include a child support commencement date that the parties agreed to on appeal, and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Updike v. Updike, et al." on Justia Law

Chase Eikom appealed a second amended judgment entered after he moved to amend parenting time. He argued the district court erred in denying his request for parenting time on all major holidays and to extend time during the summer. Eikom also argued the court erred in establishing the requirement his parenting time be reduced if he misses four or more weekends in a year. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court could “discern the rationale behind the district court’s findings, and the findings are supported by the evidence, the court did not err.” Judgment was affirmed. View "Eikom v. Eikom" on Justia Law

Father J.R. appealed a juvenile court order finding his child, M.R., to be deprived; removing M.R. from the care, custody, and control of the parents; and placing M.R. with North Star Human Service Zone (“North Star”). Because M.R. was no longer a minor child and the order on appeal had expired, the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Interest of M.R." on Justia Law

Donald Burris appealed a district court order denying his motion to eliminate or reduce spousal support paid to Luann Burris. Donald argued the court erred: (1) in determining there had not been a material change in circumstances; (2) as a matter of law in not applying a 2015 statutory change; (3) in not considering his future retirement; and (4) in awarding Luann Burris attorney’s fees. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burris v. Burris" on Justia Law

Joseph Schrodt appealed the judgment of divorce from Katie Schrodt. Joseph raised numerous issues including the district court’s denial of his request for a continuance, the court’s valuation of certain marital assets, the court’s calculation of child support, the court’s parenting plan, and the court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Katie. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schrodt v. Schrodt, et al." on Justia Law

ason Canerdy appealed a district court order denying his motion for contempt and his motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. Jason and Samantha Canerdy were divorced in June 2020. The parties had two minor children. The judgment awarded Samantha primary residential responsibility and Jason reasonable parenting time. In April 2021, Jason filed a motion to modify the judgment to be awarded primary residential responsibility of the minor children, or in the alternative, be awarded equal residential responsibility. Jason also filed a motion for contempt for Samantha's interference with his parenting time. The district court denied Jason's motion for contempt and his motion to modify the judgment for primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. The court found that there was no evidence that Samantha disobeyed the judgment, and that she had not committed contempt of court. Further, the court found no persistent and willful denial of parenting time, no evidence that the children were in any danger, and no evidence that primary residential responsibility changed. The court stated that Jason did not take responsibility for his own inaction in regard to not spending as much time with his minor children because he did not regularly attend or participate in their dance activities. The court noted that Jason would seek to make up his parenting time when the dance activities occur on his scheduled weekend. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Jason established a prima facie case for modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Canerdy v. Canerdy, et al." on Justia Law

Thomas Kaspari appealed an amended judgment awarding spousal support to Jean Kaspari entered after the first appeal in this case. The district court ordered Thomas to pay $7,000 per month in spousal support to Jean until he turned 65 years old. Thomas argued the district court erred in the amount of spousal support it awarded, claiming: (1) the court failed to properly consider the distribution of the parties’ assets and debts; (2) the evidence did not support a finding of a need for support; and (3) the court improperly attempted to equalize the parties’ incomes. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined that although the district court made findings about the Ruff-Fischer factors and considered Jean's need for spousal support and Thomas' ability to pay, the court failed to adequately explain its reason for awarding spousal support of $7,000 per month when Jean did not show a need for that amount. "The court was not required to provide a detailed calculation of Jean Kaspari’s need for spousal support, but it was required to make sufficient findings to provide a discernible basis for its decision. Without further explanation from the district court, the amount appears to be arbitrary or an attempt to equalize the parties’ incomes." Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s spousal support decision and remanded for that court to make further findings explaining its decision or to reconsider the amount of support. View "Kaspari v. Kaspari" on Justia Law