Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Dianna Holm appealed a judgment granting her a divorce from Thomas Holm and dividing their marital property. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's treatment as compensation of dividends received from stock purchased from Thomas' employer, and the court's valuation and award of the stock, were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Holm v. Holm" on Justia Law

Chad Lizakowski appealed a divorce judgment distributing marital property and awarding spousal support and attorney fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's distribution of marital property and award of spousal support. However, the Court reversed the district court's award of attorney fees, and remanded for reconsideration of Chad Lizakowski's request for fees. View "Lizakowski v. Lizakowski" on Justia Law

Jessica Klein appealed the district court's temporary order for custody after it denied her motion to transfer jurisdiction to Iowa. Klein argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and North Dakota was an inconvenient forum to hear the case. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding North Dakota properly retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the matter and did not abuse its discretion in finding North Dakota to be a convenient forum. View "North Dakota v. Winegar" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed the district court's order granting Kayla Rath a disorderly conduct restraining order, and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Mark argued the district court erred in finding Kayla met her burden of proving the element of intent and in finding that his actions were not constitutionally protected. He also argued the district court lacked jurisdiction when it issued its order. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing its order granting the disorderly conduct restraining order and had jurisdiction at the time it denied Mark's motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

William Gagnon appealed a district court judgment awarding Tara Lara primary residential responsibility of the parties' three children. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Gagnon failed to overcome the presumption that he not be awarded primary residential responsibility due to domestic violence. View "Gagnon v. Gagnon" on Justia Law

Robert Carroll appealed an order denying his motion to set aside or vacate the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, after the court entered a divorce judgment awarding Anna Carroll monthly child support of $1,387. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying a continuance of the trial or in allowing the State be named a real party in interest. The Court concluded, however, the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions when it made insufficient findings to support its award of child support. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carroll v. Carroll" on Justia Law

Spencer Curtiss appealed the district court's Third Amended Judgment modifying his parenting time and its order denying his motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court remanded to the district court for further findings and retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3). The Court concluded on remand the district court made adequate findings to support its decision to suspend visitation of D.C., but that the findings suspending P.C.'s visits to the penitentiary were inadequate and are not supported by the record.The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded again for further proceedings. “On remand, the district court must address how supervised visitations by P.C. will be facilitated, and determine which party shall be responsible for any costs associated with supervised visitation by a third party.” View "Curtiss v. Curtiss" on Justia Law

Keanna Schneider appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify the parenting time of Keaton O'Hara from unsupervised to supervised parenting time. Schneider sought modification after an incident in which O'Hara punched her in the face in front of their child during an exchange. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in handling this case and reversed the court's order denying Schneider's motion, and remanded for additional findings. View "O'Hara v. Schneider" on Justia Law

Sandra Hoverson appeals a district court order resolving a parenting time dispute. She argued the district court improperly modified parenting time without a formal motion filed by either party. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's order did not modify the amended judgment and affirmed. View "Hoverson v. Hoverson" on Justia Law

C.D.G.E. was born in 2010. Since 2014, J.E. had primary residential responsibility of the child. A.P. was obligated to pay monthly child support payments. J.E. petitioned the district court to terminate A.P.'s parental rights. With his petition, he submitted an affidavit from A.P. in which she consented to terminating her parental rights. The petition referenced N.D.C.C. 14-15-19, which applied only "in connection with an adoption action," which was never contemplated here. All further proceedings, including J.E.'s proposed default order, J.E.'s argument at the hearing on the petition, and motion to reconsider, were considered by the parties and the district court under N.D.C.C. 27-20-45, which governed termination of parental rights where no adoption was pending. At the parental-termination hearing, J.E. argued that A.P. had both: (1) abandoned her child; and (2) consented to terminating her parental rights. The district court denied the petition without finding on the record whether A.P. had abandoned the child. In denying J.E.'s petition, the district court found that A.P. had not validly consented to terminating her parental rights. Ultimately, the district court denied the father's petition, concluding the child's welfare would not be served by terminating A.P.'s parental rights. J.E. appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition where it was not established that denying the petition would seriously affect the child's welfare. View "Matter of C.D.G.E." on Justia Law