Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Alonna Norberg appealed a district court judgment granting her a divorce from Jon Norberg, distributing the parties' marital estate, awarding Jon Norberg primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children, and denying her request for spousal support. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court's decision to award Jon Norberg primary residential responsibility of the children was not clearly erroneous. However, the Supreme Court also concluded the court erred by failing to include all of the parties' property in the property distribution, failing to retain jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future, and forgiving Jon Norberg's child support arrearages. View "Norberg v. Norberg" on Justia Law

K.G., the father of minor child G.K.G., appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate an order terminating his parental rights and refusing to vacate an order for ongoing child support. Concluding the father's request for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 was not properly before the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the father's motion to vacate. View "In the matter of G.K.G." on Justia Law

Amanda Kulbacki appealed a district court judgment awarding her a divorce from Nicholas Michael and granting Michael's mother grandparent visitation. Kulbacki argued: (1) the district court erred in awarding grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C.; (2) that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., violated the United States and North Dakota Constitutions; (3) that the district court erred in including a provision that a future termination of Michael's parental rights would not impact his mother's visitation rights; and (4) that the district court erred in denying Kulbacki's motion for attorney fees as a victim of domestic violence contemplated in section 14-09-29(4), N.D.C.C. Upon review of the facts of the underlying case, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's determination that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., was constitutional and that grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., would not automatically end upon termination of Michael's parental rights. The Court further determined the district court unconstitutionally placed the burden on Kulbacki to show grandparent visitation was not in the child's best interests and made a legal error in determining attorney fees by impermissibly considering Kulbacki's return to Michael after she experienced domestic abuse at his hands. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kulbacki v. Michael" on Justia Law

The paternal grandparents of the three minor children, born in 1996, 2008, and 2010, sued the children's parents for grandparent visitation, alleging visitation was in the best interests of the minor children and would not interfere with the relationship between the children and their parents. The parents have never been married. After the hearing, the court ordered extensive grandparent visitation. The grandparents thereafter brought a contempt proceeding against the parents for allegedly failing to comply with the court's visitation order. After a hearing, the court refused to find the parents in contempt, but instead ordered temporary modification of visitation for the two younger children. The court decided the contempt issue would be further addressed during the next hearing in this matter. Since this appeal was been filed by the parents, the trial continued further contempt hearings. The parents appealed the trial court's judgment awarding visitation to the children's grandparents under the grandparent visitation statute. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding N.D.C.C. 14-09-05.1 required deference for fit parents' judgment as to the best interests of the children under the grandparent visitation statute. View "In re S.B." on Justia Law

Christopher Lind appealed an amended judgment granting his motion to modify child support, denying his motion to modify spousal support, and denying his motion to find Karla Lind, his former wife, in contempt. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Christopher's motion to modify spousal support, did not err in denying his motion to find Karla in contempt, and did not err in refusing to extend Christopher credit toward his support obligations from the sale of a lawn tractor. View "Lind v. Lind" on Justia Law

Nicholas Law appealed a district court judgment awarding himself and Danielle Whittet joint residential responsibility for their minor child. Upon review of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding several of the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and Law should have been awarded primary residential responsibility for the parties' child. View "Law v. Whittet" on Justia Law

Jean Topolski appeals from an amended judgment granting Thomas Topolski primary residential responsibility over the couple's minor child. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment. View "Topolski v. Topolski" on Justia Law

John Lervold appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility from Simone Regan to himself. Upon review of the specific facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law in ruling that a material change in circumstances did not exist and in denying Lervold's request for a change of primary residential responsibility. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regan v. Lervold" on Justia Law

Sheena Leno (Mittleider) appealed a district court order that denied her expedited motion to reopen the record, and a judgment that awarded Adam Vandal primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child, L.V. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error or abuse of the district court's discretion in denying the request to reopen the record. View "Vandal v. Leno" on Justia Law

Kyle Mackey appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify parenting time and petition for non-parental visitation. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that Mackey failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of parenting time. Moreover, the Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist justifying non-parental visitation for Amber Mackey. View "Bredeson v. Mackey" on Justia Law