Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Angela Dieterle appealed a divorce judgment and challenged the district court's rulings on primary residential responsibility, parenting time, marital property and debt distribution, and spousal support. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed, the judgment, but remanded the case for the court to complete a parenting plan for the parties. View "Dieterle v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

Loren Woodward appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,000.00 per month to Rita Woodward. Loren Woodward does not challenge the finding that Rita Woodward's standard of living has decreased. Rather, as noted, he argues that Rita Woodward is capable of being rehabilitated, and therefore permanent spousal support is inappropriate. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Woodward v. Woodward" on Justia Law

Sandra Hoverson appealed and Carl Hoverson cross-appealed a divorce judgment that distributed the parties' marital estate and ordering Carl to pay Sandra $3,000 per month for spousal support for two years, $3,002 per month for child support, and attorney's fees. The parties' arguments raised issues about the property distribution, the duration and amount of spousal support, the propriety and the amount of an upward deviation for child support, and the award of attorney's fees. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hoverson v. Hoverson" on Justia Law

Derrick Deaver appealed a district court order that granted a motion by Julie Jensen to restrict his parenting time with the parties' two minor children by requiring him to exercise supervised parenting time outside the presence of his fiancee and her daughter. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the court's decision was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the order. View "Jensen v. Deaver" on Justia Law

Respondent-Appellant Kelly Kroshus appealed a district court order granting Petitioner-Appellee Andrea Hanisch a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against him. The parties were never married but dated until Fall, 2011. They had one child together. After unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, Hanisch petitioned the district court for the restraining order after he sent her a series of allegedly harassing text messages, some of which contained sexually explicit pictures of her, and threatened to post those pictures on a website. Kroshus essentially acknowledged that he sent the text messages described in Hanisch's petition for the restraining order, but testified that sending such messages and sexual pictures was a normal part of their relationship while they were dating. Kroshus argued that he and Hanisch would both often send pictures to each other and make derogatory comments toward each other, and that they did this to spice up their relationship, as a way of flirting. Kroshus contended that once he received the text message from her telling him to stop texting, he stopped. He also asserted that cell phone reception on his phone was limited and prevented him from receiving text messages from Hanisch until later in the day. Kroshus argued further that the facts of the case did not support a finding of disorderly conduct: the text messages to Hanisch took place during a relatively short period of time, that he had consumed a large amount of alcohol and thought they were still working on their relationship, and that the delay for him to stop texting her does not amount to an attempt to adversely affect her safety, security, or privacy. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the restraining order. View "Hanisch v. Kroshus" on Justia Law

Nikki LaFromboise appealed a district court judgment granting LaFromboise and Russell Niffenegger joint residential responsibility of the parties' minor child, S.R.L. LaFromboise and Niffenegger dated briefly but were not married nor lived together. The parties did not date while LaFramboise was pregnant. Niffenegger was present at the hospital for S.R.L.'s birth. LaFromboise and S.R.L. resided at Niffenegger's home for a short period after S.R.L.'s birth. LaFromboise and S.R.L. moved to Devils Lake; Niffenegger maintained his residence in Grand Forks. Niffenegger visited S.R.L. every other weekend. LaFromboise initiated a child support action, and Niffenegger was ordered to pay. In June 2011, Niffenegger commenced an action seeking primary residential responsibility of S.R.L. At the time of trial, the parties lived and worked in separate communities ninety miles apart, and LaFromboise maintained primary residential responsibility. The district court held a trial and concluded S.R.L.'s interests were best served by LaFromboise and Niffenegger sharing joint residential responsibility. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of joint residential responsibility, concluding the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of S.R.L." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Amber Hageman (now known as Sagert) appealed an amended divorce judgment modifying a prior judgment and granting Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hageman primary residential responsibility for their minor child. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in modifying the judgment and awarding Hageman primary residential responsibility of the child, the Court affirmed. View "Hageman v. Hageman" on Justia Law

B.F. (father) appealed a district court judgment that appointed G.S., G.J., and K.C. as guardians over J.S.L.F. J.S.L.F. was born in the summer of 2008 to B.F. and S.M.L. They lived in Grand Forks for the first few months of the child's life, and were the subject of several complaints received by Grand Forks County Social Services. Father, mother, and child moved to Glenburn allegedly to avoid social services. While they were in Glenburn, there were at least three more reports from social services about their supervision of the child, the condition of the house they lived in, and the feeding of the child. In November 2010, the mother left the child with two of the co-petitioners so she could move to Bismarck. She signed a co-petition for appointment of a guardian in which she gave consent for G.S., G.J., and K.C. to be appointed guardians. Several weeks later, the mother arrived at G.S. and G.J.'s home with the police and took the child back. The next day, the district court entered an ex parte order giving G.S., G.J., and K.C. a temporary guardianship over the child. In the order, the court found an emergency existed because the mother was unable to care for the child, and found the mother's parental rights had been suspended by the circumstances. The father was not given notice before the guardianship was entered, and no hearing was held before the temporary guardianship. The temporary guardians made a motion to make the guardianship permanent, and B.F. was served with notice of the petition. A hearing on the petition for permanent guardianship was held late summer 2011. The district court ruled that both parents' rights had been suspended by the circumstances, and that it was in the best interests of the child to appoint G.S., G.J., and K.C. as the child's permanent guardians. On appeal, B.F. argued his parental rights were not suspended by circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the facts in the record did not support a finding of abandonment (to preclude suspension of rights by the circumstances), and therefore the district court's finding that B.F. abandoned J.S.L.F. was clearly erroneous. View "Guardianship of J.S.L.F." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Dammon Burgard appealed a trial court's default judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee Kira Burgard primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children. Specifically, Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in granting Kira Burgard's motion without a hearing and without sufficient evidence to evaluate the best interests of the child factors under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1). The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor err in granting the default judgment. View "Burgard v. Burgard" on Justia Law

Marilyn Sateren appealed an order that denied reallocation of marital property in a stipulated divorce case, and Lorne Sateren moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the trial court record and the arguments the parties made on appeal, the Supreme Court denied Lorne Sateren's motion to dismiss because Marilyn Sateren did not waive her right to appeal by unconditionally, voluntarily and consciously accepting a substantial benefit under the divorce judgment. The Court reversed the order denying reallocation of marital property and remanded the case for the district court to adequately explain the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision to deny reallocation. View "Sateren v. Sateren" on Justia Law