Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Scott Klein appealed, and Janis Klein cross-appealed, a district court order denying Scott's motion to terminate spousal support. In the divorce judgment, the district court awarded Janis permanent spousal support of $4,500 per month until such time as she died or remarried. Scott alleged Janis habitually cohabitated with another individual in a relationship analogous to marriage for at least one year, as required to terminate a permanent spousal support award under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3). Janis, among other arguments, argued N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3) did not apply to cohabitation prior to August 1, 2015. Because he did not satisfy the requirements under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3), the district court denied Scott Klein's motion to terminate the spousal support. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "Klein v. Klein" on Justia Law

Mark and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013. Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time. Mark filed a motion for an order to show cause and a motion for relief from the original divorce judgment. He argued both motions in one brief, asserting Kayla violated his due process and First Amendment rights by monitoring his phone calls with the children. He also argued Kayla violated the terms of the divorce judgment by making the children unavailable for scheduled calls, ending calls prematurely, and refusing to allow one of the children to accept a cell phone he sent as a gift. Finally, Mark asserted the district court judge presiding over his case failed to remain impartial and should have recused himself. The district court denied Mark's motion for an order and for relief. Finding no reversible error in the district court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

K.P. appealed an order appointing a conservator and co-guardians for his adult uncle, R.G. In September 2014, R.G. lived in one of several mobile homes on land in rural McKenzie County owned by him and members of his family. R.G.'s brother helped care for him until that brother died in May 2014. According to R.G., his niece, S.P., became his caregiver after his brother's death, and she lived near Billings and usually saw him once or twice a month. In September 2014, law enforcement officers raided the property where R.G.'s mobile home was located as part of an investigation of others. According to a McKenzie County Deputy Sheriff, R.G.'s mobile home had dog feces throughout and did not have running water, a sewer or septic system, a furnace, a working refrigerator, or an adequate food supply. After the law enforcement raid, C.G., a niece of R.G.'s, petitioned for appointment of an emergency conservator and guardian for her uncle, alleging he was between 86 and 87 years old and was being unduly influenced by S.P., who was nominated as his attorney-in-fact under a July 2014 durable power of attorney. C.G.'s petition sought to have R.G. declared an incapacitated person and to establish protective proceedings for his residential, medical, and financial affairs. C.G. thereafter petitioned for appointment of a conservator and a guardian for R.G. At the hearing, K.P. testified his sister, S.P., was willing to waive her appointment as her uncle's designated attorney-in-fact and healthcare agent under the July 2014 power of attorney and K.P. sought to be appointed as his uncle's conservator and guardian as the named alternate under that document. The court appointed GAPS, K.N., and S.S., a granddaughter of R.G.'s brother, as co-guardians and appointed American State Bank & Trust as conservator for R.G. K.P. appealed that decision. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding good cause not to appoint K.P. as guardian and conservator for R.G. and did not abuse its discretion in appointing other individuals and entities as conservator and co-guardians for R.G. View "Guardianship/Conservatorship of R.G." on Justia Law

The State petitioned to terminate a father's and mother's parental rights in October 2015. The father received the petition, affidavit in support of termination and an affidavit of mailing while incarcerated at the Richland county jail. The affidavit of mailing, which was also received by the guardian ad litem, listed the father's address at the Richland county jail. The guardian ad litem filed a report supporting termination, listing the father's whereabouts as unknown and his last contact with social services as June 2014. The amended report stated the mother was voluntarily terminating her parental rights. The court mailed the report to the father at the Richland county jail. The father appealed the juvenile court's order adopting a judicial referee's decision to terminate his parental rights. He appealed both the juvenile court order and the judicial referee's order, arguing he was denied due process of law because the guardian ad litem failed to fulfill mandatory responsibilities. The Supreme Court found the guardian ad litem's failure to interview the father did not violate the father's constitutional right to due process. The juvenile court order adopting the judicial referee's order and terminating the father's parental rights was affirmed. View "Interest of N.A." on Justia Law

Alane Schmuck, now known as Alane Dosmann, appeals from a district court's divorce judgment denying her an award of spousal support and declining to retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Dosmann filed for divorce in August 2014. The parties filed a joint stipulation, resolving many of the issues for trial. The parties litigated a number of issues, including the division of property and debts and whether an award of spousal support was appropriate. After a bench trial, the district court adopted the parties' stipulation, with the exception of the stipulated amount of Schmuck's gross income. The district court identified and valued the remaining marital property and debts. In dividing the marital estate and in deciding spousal support under the "Ruff-Fischer" guidelines, the district court made extensive findings of fact. After weighing the factors, the district court awarded fifty-five percent of the marital estate to Dosmann and denied her an award of spousal support. The district court did not retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Dosmann appealed the denial of her requests for support and to for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over spousal support. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's judgment. View "Schmuck v. Schmuck" on Justia Law

North Dakota and Shannon Strating appealed a district court order granting Strating and Ken Andres equal residential responsibility of Strating and Andres' child. Strating and Andres were the non-marital parents of one child. Strating applied for child support and the North Dakota Child Support Enforcement Unit commenced a paternity action against Andres. An interim order gave Strating primary residential responsibility and gave Andres parenting time once per week and every other weekend and imposed a child support obligation on Andres. At the conclusion of trial, the district court judge suggested Strating would receive primary residential responsibility and asked Strating and Andres to develop a parenting plan. Strating and Andres were unable to agree on a parenting plan. The district court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order for Judgment granting equal residential responsibility. No child support was ordered. Strating moved the district court to amend its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment. The district court denied her motion and the State and Strating appealed. Strating argued the district court erred in its analysis of the best interest factors and in its parenting plan and by issuing a written order inconsistent with its oral order. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to add the missing statutorily mandated child support calculations and parenting plan provisions. The Court affirmed the remainder of the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Andres" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013. Kayla Rath was awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's children, and Mark Rath was awarded supervised parenting time. This Court decided a number of appeals stemming from their divorce. The divorce judgment allows Mark Rath to call the children each Monday and every other Friday and Sunday between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mark Rath asserts Kayla Rath has failed to abide by these terms, and he filed a motion for the district court to order Kayla Rath to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Mark Rath supplemented his motion with an affidavit detailing Kayla Rath's allegedly contemptuous acts. In the affidavit, Mark Rath described two specific occasions--one in November 2015 and one in December 2015--on which he asserts Kayla Rath attempted to reschedule his phone conversations with the children. The affidavit of Mark Rath states that two weeks before the scheduled visit in December, Kayla Rath attempted to reschedule the time for the visit. The district court denied Mark Rath's motion before Kayla Rath filed a reply. The court found that Mark Rath's allegations, accepted as true for purposes of the motion, did not warrant a contempt finding. Mark Rath appealed. On appeal, Mark Rath argues the district court abused its discretion when it found contempt proceedings were unwarranted, and the court erred when it denied his motion before Kayla Rath filed a reply. The district court has broad discretion in making contempt determinations. We affirm. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Patricia Langwald appealed a divorce judgment distributing the parties' marital property and awarding child support. She argued the district court incorrectly valued and distributed the marital property. She also argued the district court incorrectly calculated child support. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the property valuation and distribution, but reversed and remanded for the district court to properly calculate child support. View "Langwald v. Langwald" on Justia Law

Gregory Larson appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their minor children from Ana Cristina Conceicao to him. Conceicao cross-appealed an order denying her motions to relocate and for attorney fees. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the trial court's findings of fact on each party's motion were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Conceicao attorney fees. View "Larson v. Larson" on Justia Law

This appeal resolved on in many disputes between Mark Rath and Kayla Rath. Mark appealed a disorderly conduct restraining order. In 2015, Kayla petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Mark, citing a litany of conduct purportedly rising to the level of disorderly conduct. These allegations included: Mark calling his children nearly twenty times in one night, Mark using foul language towards Kayla, Mark saying he had a business associate seek Kayla's phone records, Mark reporting Kayla to authorities out of concern she may be illegally receiving government benefits, and other miscellaneous conduct. After the hearing, the district court concluded Mark's conduct consisted of unwanted words and actions intended to adversely affect Kayla's safety, security, and privacy. After reviewing its order, the Supreme Court was concerned by the district court's lack of explanation for the necessity of the procedure it used in granting the restraining order. "While the court cited ensuring safety, minimizing conflict, and limiting the hearing to the pertinent issues before the court as justifying this procedure, the court did not elaborate on what facts or circumstances justified these concerns in this instance. Without further specificity, these conclusory justifications are insufficient to justify deviating from standard trial practices in restraining order proceedings because they leave us to speculate about the specific circumstances justifying denying Mark Rath the opportunity to directly question Kayla Rath." The Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in not allowing Mark to directly cross-examine Kayla without adequately explaining, on the record, its reasons for not allowing him to do so. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for a new hearing. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law