Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Tricia Taylor appeals from orders denying her motions to quash contempt and for immediate release from incarceration. The orders stemmed from custody disputes between Taylor, Aarin Nygaard and Terrance Stanley, the two fathers of her minor children. Nygaard and Stanley were eventually awarded primary residential responsibility for their respective children, and Taylor was granted supervised visitation. Taylor fled with both of the minor children to the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation in South Dakota, and Nygaard and Stanley have not had any contact with the children since. Taylor was found in contempt for violating multiple district court orders for refusing to return the minor children to their fathers. In addition, Taylor was arrested and pled guilty to class C felony parental kidnapping and was incarcerated in North Dakota. In 2015, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court entered a temporary order awarding custody of the children to Taylor's sister on the reservation. Shortly before Taylor was scheduled to be released on parole on the parental kidnapping conviction, the district court issued interlocutory orders in both custody cases finding her in contempt for refusing to return the children to their fathers and issued warrants for her arrest. Immediately upon her release from incarceration on the kidnapping conviction, Taylor was served with the arrest warrants and remained in custody for contempt. At a hearing on the interlocutory orders, Taylor argued she did not have the ability to return the minor children to their fathers. A judicial referee rejected the argument and found Taylor was "voluntarily electing to continue to withhold" the minor children from their fathers. Taylor requested the district court to review the referee's orders, and in April 2016 the court adopted and affirmed the referee's orders. Taylor did not appeal. Taylor has not returned the children to their fathers and remained incarcerated. Taylor moved to quash the contempt orders and for immediate release from imprisonment, claiming she had been incarcerated for contempt longer than the six months authorized under N.D.C.C. 27-10-01.4(1)(b). Nygaard and Stanley argued the orders were not appealable. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding the judicial referee's orders and the district court's orders on request for review did not contain an express finding that imprisonment for six months under N.D.C.C. 27-10-01.4(1)(b) would be ineffectual to terminate Taylor's continuing contempt. Without that finding, Taylor could not be imprisoned for more than six months under the court's most recent orders finding her in contempt. View "Nygaard v. Taylor" on Justia Law

John Smart appealed an amended divorce judgment and from an order and judgment denying his motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's equitable redistribution of the marital property was not clearly erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in entering the amended judgment, denying Smart's subsequent post-judgment motions, and awarding attorney's fees. View "Lewis v. Smart" on Justia Law

In a proceeding relating to the modification of grandparent visitation, the termination of a parent's rights is a material change in circumstances. Amanda Kulbacki appealed a district court order denying her motion to terminate Shawn Coulter's grandparent visitation with Kulbacki's minor child and amend the child's birth certificate. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding as a matter of law, the termination of Nicholas Michael's parental rights was a material change in circumstances and Coulter (Michael's mother) was not able to establish a basis to have visitation under the facts of this case. The Court remanded for briefing on the district court's jurisdiction to order the department of vital statistics to amend the child's birth certificate upon termination of parental rights. View "Kulbacki v. Michael" on Justia Law

A district court must analyze all four Stout-Hawkinson factors in determining whether a custodial parent may move out-of-state with a child. Cody Booen appealed a district court's order granting Jessica Appel's motion to relocate. Appel cross-appealed the orders granting her motion to relocate and to show cause finding her in contempt. Booen argued the district court erred by granting the motion to relocate because it did not properly analyze and weigh the Stout-Hawkinson factors. Appel argued the district court erred in establishing a parenting plan, by finding her in contempt and requiring her to pay half of Booen's attorney fees. Finding no abuse of the district court's discretion in either decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's orders. View "Booen v. Appel" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to adopt a child must ordinarily obtain the written consent of the child's parents, though if written consent is not provided, it must be proven the parent either (1) for one year failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate with the child or provide for the care and support of the child or (2) abandoned the child. A.F. appealed a district court order denying his petition to adopt J.L.F. The district court denied his petition after finding the child's biological father neither consented to the adoption nor abandoned his child. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. View "Adoption of J.L.F." on Justia Law

Paul Schaffner appealed a district court order denying his petition to modify his parenting time from supervised visitation to unsupervised. The district court denied his petition after finding Schaffner failed to show a material change in circumstances had occurred since the previous order establishing his parenting time. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schaffner v. Schaffner" on Justia Law

The biological father of two minor children appealed a juvenile court order terminating both parents' parental rights to their children. The father argued the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination under N.D.C.C. 27-20-44(1)(c)(1) and Grant County Social Services failed to use reasonable efforts to reunite the parents with their children. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court did not err and affirmed. View "Interest of A.B." on Justia Law

A parent who has committed domestic violence may rebut the presumption favoring only supervised visitation with a sufficient accumulation of direct and indirect evidence of a lack of physical or emotional danger to the child. Keanna Schneider originally appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify the parenting time of Keaton O'Hara from unsupervised to supervised parenting time. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously held the trial court erred by improperly excluding evidence, making insufficient findings, and misapplying the law in analyzing the parties' conduct. We remanded for further proceedings and retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3). On remand, the district court issued additional findings and an amended order. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court complied with the Supreme Court's mandate by holding an evidentiary hearing and that its additional findings were not clearly erroneous. View "O'Hara v. Schneider" on Justia Law

In domestic relations cases, the requirements of N.D.R.Ct. 8.2 must be complied with before a party's request for affirmative relief may be granted in an ex parte interim order. Attorney's fees may be awarded as a remedial sanction for contempt. Aeryn Peterson appealed an order to show cause and an order finding her in contempt. She argued the district court abused its discretion by finding her in contempt and ordering her to pay Cody Schulz's attorneys fees. Peterson and Schulz had one child together. Peterson was awarded primary residential responsibility and Schultz was awarded parenting time. Peterson moved to relocate with the child out of state. Peterson requested the court allow her to move with the child to New Mexico so she could pursue a degree in theater. Schulz moved for an order to show cause, arguing Peterson violated the judgment by moving the child out of state without his consent or a court order. Schulz also requested the court order Peterson to return the child to North Dakota "immediately and no later than August 15, 2016," and award him full costs and attorneys fees for having to bring the motion. Schulz filed a supporting affidavit claiming he served Peterson with a letter on August 4, 2016, informing her he did not consent to the move, he learned Peterson and the child were in New Mexico on August 8, 2016, and Peterson refused to return the child to North Dakota. The district court granted Schulz's motion and entered an order to show cause. The court further ordered Peterson to return the child to North Dakota. Peterson responded to the motion for an order to show cause, arguing she was entitled to respond to the motion before the court could find she was in contempt or order her to act in any specific capacity. She claimed the court's order that she return the child to the state was improper because she did not have an opportunity to respond to the motion and a hearing had not been held. After a hearing the district court entered an order finding Peterson in contempt. The court found Peterson violated the judgment and was in contempt for moving the child to New Mexico without receiving Schulz's consent. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Peterson v. Schulz" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Supreme Court determined it was proper for the district court to look at the social stigma associated with sex offenders in determining the best interest of a child in a name change petition. Shortly after L.Z.N.'s birth, Shawn Narvais plead guilty to four counts of possession of certain materials prohibited. The mother filed a petition on behalf of the child to change his surname, arguing: (1) she did not want L.Z.N. to carry around the stigma of Narvais's crimes because he shared a last name with his father; (2) she wanted L.Z.N. to have the same last name as his half-sibling, herself, and his maternal grandparents; (3) L.Z.N. wanted to change his last name; and (4) Narvais requested a paternity test to establish his relationship with L.Z.N. and has not been involved with or supported L.Z.N. in any significant way since his incarceration. Narvais appealed a district court's order granting a petition to change his child's surname. Narvais argued the district court used improper factors in determining the best interest of L.Z.N., he was not provided proper notice of the name change petition, and his due process rights were violated because he was not allowed to appear for the hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matter of L.Z.N." on Justia Law