Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

D.L., mother of G.L., appeals from the juvenile court's order and judgment to continue guardianship of G.L. The mother argues the juvenile court erred in its determination of exceptional circumstances for continuing the guardianship. In 2015, the State filed a petition alleging G.L. (born in 2009) and her sister E.L. (born in 2001) were deprived. The parents, D.L. and T.S. (father), stipulated to a guardianship, placing both girls in the care of the eldest daughter, B.Y. The juvenile court entered an order appointing the eldest daughter as guardian and found both children deprived under N.D.C.C. 27-20-02(8)(a). The guardianship was to remain in place until the children turned eighteen. In late 2016, the mother wrote a letter to the juvenile court asking for a review of the guardianship. Two weeks later the mother wrote another letter stating the guardianship continued to be in G.L.'s best interests. Shortly after, the mother again changed her mind and asked for a review hearing. The juvenile court treated the communications as a motion to terminate the guardianship and on July 26-27 and August 24, 2017 held a hearing. At the start of the hearing the mother abandoned her request to review her middle daughter's guardianship. The juvenile court found the mother demonstrated a change in circumstances by stabilizing her living situation, obtaining full-time employment, effectively dealing with addiction, and improving her mental and emotional health. The juvenile court found the impediments creating the deprivation had been removed. The juvenile court then shifted the burden of proof to the guardian to establish by preponderance of the evidence that continuation of the guardianship remains in the best interest of the child. The juvenile court continued the guardianship, ordered the guardian's husband added as co-guardian, and gave the guardian authority to establish a visitation schedule with input from G.L.'s therapist and guardian ad litem. The mother appealed the order and judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the juvenile court failed to find exceptional circumstances and thus misapplied the law. The juvenile court also impermissibly delegated visitation scheduling responsibilities. View "Interest of G.L." on Justia Law

Cass County Social Services ("Cass County") appealed a juvenile court order denying termination of parental rights. B.H., born in June 2016, was the child of S.H. (mother) and C.H. (father). In July 2016, the juvenile court concluded that B.H. was a deprived child; had been subjected to aggravated circumstances due to prenatal exposure to methamphetamine; and ordered that B.H. be removed from the custody of the parents for a period of one year. The court also ordered that a treatment plan be developed in an effort to reunite B.H. with his parents. B.H. was returned to the parental home in October 2016. In March 2017, the mother and father tested positive for methamphetamine. B.H. remained in the home because the father intended to vacate the home and the mother committed to re-engage in treatment services. The father, who had pressured the mother to use drugs prior to the March test, left the home, but soon returned. In October 2017, both mother and child tested positive for methamphetamine. The father stated he could not be given a hair follicle test for methamphetamine because he had removed all his hair. B.H. was removed from the home, and Cass County petitioned for termination of both parents' parental rights. After a trial, the juvenile court denied termination of parental rights because it could not find by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue or would not be remedied. Cass County argues that because the juvenile court found aggravated circumstances, it erred by denying termination of parental rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the juvenile could did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition for termination of parental rights, and accordingly, affirmed the order. View "Interest of B.H." on Justia Law

Daniel Peltier appealed an order denying his motion for relief from a child support judgment. Peltier argued the district court erred in denying his motion because the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to decide his child support obligation. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the state district court had concurrent jurisdiction to decide Peltier's child support obligation, and the district court did not err in denying his motion for relief from the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Peltier" on Justia Law

J.G., the mother of minor child J.J.T, appealed a judgment terminating her parental rights to the child. J.G. argued the juvenile court erred: (1) in finding J.J.T. was deprived; (2) in denying her court-appointed counsel's motion for a continuance to prepare for trial; (3) in granting her court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record and appointing that counsel as standby counsel; and (4) in denying her statutory right to counsel. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and in allowing withdrawal of counsel, J.G.'s actions were the functional equivalent of a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of her right to counsel, and the statutory requirements for termination of J.G.'s parental rights were satisfied. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Interest of J.J.T." on Justia Law

Natasha Reiger appealed a district court judgment granting primary residential responsibility of J.Z. to Matthew Zuraff. Social services first became involved with the family because of a positive methamphetamine screening when J.Z. was born. Both Zuraff and Reiger had a history of methamphetamine use, although Reiger testified to being sober for approximately ten months and Zuraff testified he was sober for over three years. Both parents had criminal histories related to drug use, and Zuraff was incarcerated for approximately seven months after J.Z. was born. The North Dakota social worker assigned to J.Z. declined to recommend who should be awarded primary residential responsibility, but noted Zuraff was previously the more appropriate and stable option. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion granting primary residential responsibility to Zuraff. View "Zuraff v. Reiger" on Justia Law

Christopher Johnson appealed an amended judgment ordering him to pay $1,280 per month in child support. Heather Thompson cross-appealed the judgment denying her request for attorney's fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding the district court failed to calculate Johnson's income in accordance with the child support guidelines. View "Thompson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed the district court's second amended judgment modifying decisionmaking responsibility and parenting time, and orders denying his other various motions. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because no manifest injustice supported reversal, in denying his requests for recusal of the judge, and in denying his motion for reconsideration. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Jennifer Dickson appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify residential responsibility of the parties' minor children. An original determination to award primary residential responsibility is necessary when the parents have joint or equal residential responsibility or when the earlier residential responsibility determination is based on the parties' stipulation. A court may consider, but is not bound by a finding of domestic violence in another proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 14-07.1. If the court finds credible evidence that domestic violence has occurred, and there exists one incident of domestic violence which resulted in serious bodily injury or involved the use of a dangerous weapon or there exists a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding, this combination creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence may not be awarded residential responsibility for the child. After careful consideration of the facts entered in the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court failed to correctly apply the law and make necessary findings regarding the best interest factors, including the factor on domestic violence. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dickson v. Dickson" on Justia Law

Alexander Ferguson appealed a fourth amended judgment increasing his child support obligation. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court retained jurisdiction to modify his child support obligation under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), as enacted in N.D.C.C. ch. 14-12.2, and that the court did not err in determining his support obligation. View "Ferguson v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Kevin Hoff appealed a divorce judgment that, among other things, determined a parenting plan for the parties' children. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court's parenting plan decision was supported by sufficient findings and was not clearly erroneous. "A district court need not make separate findings for each best interests factor but, as with custody, the court's findings must contain sufficient specificity to show the factual basis for the decision." View "Hoff v. Hoff" on Justia Law