Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Cody Muscha appealed a domestic violence protection order, arguing he was provided with the wrong date for the hearing, therefore, he was deprived of his due process right to be heard. In affirming the district court's order, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that contrary to Muscha’s argument, the requirements of procedural due process were satisfied. Notice was provided to Muscha on January 8, 2020, well in advance of the January 16 hearing. The notice was reasonably calculated to inform him of a proceeding which had the potential to adversely affect his legal interests. Muscha’s failure to recognize the discrepancy between what he was allegedly told by the deputy and what the hearing notice stated, and his failure to appear at the hearing, could not be imputed to the district court, even assuming Muscha was provided with an incorrect date. Therefore, the district court did not err by issuing the permanent domestic violence protection order. View "Krolik v. Muscha" on Justia Law

M.L.B. appealed a district court order denying her petition to terminate T.D.R.’s parental rights. M.L.B. and T.D.R. had one child together, C.A.R., born in 2015. In May 2018, M.L.B. petitioned for termination of T.D.R.’s parental rights, claiming T.D.R. had not seen C.A.R. since February 2017 and T.D.R. failed to pay child support except for one payment in January 2018. In a separate action, M.L.B.’s husband, A.G., petitioned to adopt C.A.R. After a September 2019 hearing, the district court found T.D.R. had not abandoned C.A.R. The court found T.D.R.’s lack of contact with C.A.R. was justified because T.D.R. relied on his counsel’s advice during the pendency of his criminal case. The court also found T.D.R.’s failure to financially support C.A.R. before a child support order was in place did not support an intent to abandon C.A.R. The court found a child support order was not in place until August 2017, after its entry T.D.R. maintained substantial compliance, and T.D.R. was current on his support payments at the time of the hearing. The court thus denied M.L.B.’s petition to terminate T.D.R.’s parental rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying M.L.B.’s petition to terminate T.D.R.’s parental rights. The court’s findings had support in the record, and it did not act in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner in making its decision. View "Interest of C.A.R." on Justia Law

Jeremy Hoffarth appealed an order denying his motion for relief from a divorce judgment and his subsequent motion to reconsider. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the appeal of his motion for relief from the judgment was untimely. The Court therefore affirmed the order denying his motion to reconsider because the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Hoffarth v. Hoffarth" on Justia Law

Sabrina Bickel appealed a second amended judgment modifying Matthew Bickel’s child support obligation, order for amended judgment, and order on her motion to compel discovery. She argued the district court erred by miscalculating child support, incorrectly setting the commencement date for the modification of child support, and failing to award her attorney’s fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not "show its math" with respect to calculating the child support obligation. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bickel v. Bickel" on Justia Law

Tim O’Keeffe appealed district court orders denying his motion to terminate spousal support and awarding attorney’s fees to Kari O’Keeffe. Because the district court erred in concluding spousal support was rehabilitative rather than permanent, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the order denying Tim O’Keeffe’s motion to terminate spousal support. The Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees. View "O'Keeffe v. O'Keeffe" on Justia Law

Abbey Gifford appealed a judgment granting her and Brian Woelfel equal residential responsibility for their minor child and determining child support. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by including an “automatic” change of custody provision that purported to modify the original residential responsibility decision without consideration of the child’s best interests at the time of a potential move. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Woelfel v. Gifford" on Justia Law

Brandi Koffler appealed a second amended judgment modifying Beau Koffler’s child support obligation. She argued the district court erred by finding there was a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of child support. After review of the facts specific to this case, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court’s finding of a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the child support obligation was clearly erroneous. View "Koffler v. Koffler" on Justia Law

Alysha Instasi appealed a district court judgment dismissing her motion to amend a Washington child custody judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Instasi and Jeremy Hiebert had two children. In December 2015, a judgment was entered in Washington relating to residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support. In July 2018, Instasi moved to amend the Washington judgment in North Dakota district court. In an affidavit supporting the motion, Instasi stated that she and the children have been living in North Dakota since October 2015. The district court entered a default judgment after Hiebert failed to respond to Instasi’s motion. In June 2019, Hiebert moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing the North Dakota court lacked jurisdiction to decide Instasi’s motion to amend the Washington judgment. After a hearing, the court vacated the default judgment and dismissed Instasi’s motion. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify the initial child custody determination made in Washington. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in North Dakota. View "Instasi v. Hiebert" on Justia Law

Donna Wald appealed an amended divorce judgment valuing and distributing hers and Gerard Wald’s marital property. She also appealed a postjudgment order denying her motion for contempt or redistribution of property. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not clearly err in valuing and distributing the parties’ marital property. View "Wald v. Wald" on Justia Law

Aimee Norby and Robert Hinesley were the parents of a child born in 2012. In 2014, Norby filed and served a complaint seeking primary residential responsibility over the child. Norby was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Hinesley was awarded parenting time. In March 2019, Norby married Lyle Anderson. Anderson worked as a diesel mechanic in the Williston, North Dakota, area. Anderson grew up in Smithville, Missouri, and owned a home there. Smithville was a town of approximately 10,000 people about twenty minutes north of Kansas City, Missouri. Norby and Anderson resided in Williston with the Norby’s and Hinesley’s child. Hinesley also lived in Williston. Norby filed a motion to relocate to Smithville with the child. Hinesley opposed Norby’s motion and filed a motion to change primary residential responsibility or modify parenting time. The district court denied Norby’s motion to relocate. On appeal, Norby argued the district court erred in denying her motion, that the district court’s findings under the two Stout-Hawkinson factors were clearly erroneous. She argued the evidence demonstrated an out of state move had prospective advantages that would improve her and the child’s quality of life. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding on factor one. Norby also argued the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous because there was no indication the move was premised upon an effort to limit Hinesley’s parenting time. The Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding on factor two. The Court thus affirmed denial fo Norby's motion to relocate. View "Norby v. Hinesley, et al." on Justia Law