Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to modify child support. He argued the district court erred when it applied the North Dakota Supreme Court’s vexatious litigant pre-filing order, when it allowed the State to file a response to his motion after the deadline, and when it denied his motion without a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Rath v. Rath, et al." on Justia Law

Michael Brockmeyer appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify his joint residential responsibility to primary residential responsibility. He argued the district court erred: (1) as a matter of law by finding best interest factors a, b, d, f, g, and k favored neither party; (2) by applying the endangerment standard of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 after the parties waived that provision in their stipulated divorce agreement; (3) by declining to modify residential responsibility because of facts unknown to the court at the time the court entered the original divorce judgment based on their stipulated agreement; and (4) by allowing various witnesses to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at trial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brockmeyer v. Brockmeyer, et al." on Justia Law

Miguel Andrews appealed a divorce judgment dividing the marital estate between Candice Crichlow and him. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court conclude the district court clearly erred by including in the marital estate the value of Andrews’s financial accounts opened after the agreed upon valuation date. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Crichlow v. Andrews" on Justia Law

Karena and Keith Jensen (“Jensens”), as foster parents to A.P., appealed a juvenile court’s order denying their motion to modify and order approving a transition plan. Because the Jensens were not “aggrieved parties” under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26(1), the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "Interest of A.P." on Justia Law

Travis Hoffman appealed an amended judgment and orders denying his motion to modify residential responsibility and granting Tia Hoffman’s motion for a change of residence to relocate out of state with their minor child. Travis argued the district court erred in denying his motion to modify residential responsibility by applying a heightened standard to his motion and, alternatively, finding he failed to satisfy that standard. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment and orders denying the motion to modify residential responsibility and granting the motion for a change of residence. View "Hoffman v. Hoffman, et. al." on Justia Law

Ayrica Penor, formerly Ayrica Jensen, appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility. On appeal, Penor argued the district court erred in determining that she failed to plead a prima facie case and in denying her request for a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jensen v. Jensen, et al." on Justia Law

Paul Reed appealed a district court judgment modifying his child support obligation, arguing the court erred in determining his gross income. Reed had two separate sources of income: a military disability benefit of $2,571.85 monthly and a military pension of $2,491.00 monthly. Reed’s first ex-wife received a monthly payment of $622.75 from his military pension and a monthly payment of $189.72 for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Reed’s second ex-wife, Ellen Reed, received a monthly payment of $327.00 from his military pension. Reed argued the payments made to his ex-wives should have been deducted from his total gross income when calculating his child support obligation. The district court disagreed, did not deduct the payments made to his ex-wives, and modified Reed’s monthly child support obligation to $1,657.00 per month. Although the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed military disability benefits and military pension payments payable to Reed fell within the definition and examples of income, the Court concluded retirement benefits allocated within the property division in the prior divorce proceedings was not income for child support purposes. The allocation of $622.75 to Reed’s first ex-wife should not have been included in his calculation of income for child support because the funds were the property of his first ex-wife. The payment was specifically included in the property division in Reed and his first ex-wife’s divorce judgment. The monthly payment of $327.00 to Ellen Reed was her property and therefore not income. The monthly SBP payment of $189.72 was correctly included in Paul Reed’s income. The SBP payment is not included within the division of property in the divorce judgment. The support order was reversed and the matter remanded for recalculation of the child support obligation. View "Reed v. Reed, et al." on Justia Law

Heather Kitzan appealed a judgment entered following a bench trial in her divorce action against Justun Kitzan asserting the district court erred in including certain items as marital property, in distributing the marital estate, and in denying her spousal support. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Kitzan v. Kitzan, et al." on Justia Law

R.F. appealed a juvenile court order appointing a guardian for R.F.’s and S.V.’s children and restricting contact and visitation between the parents and children. C.B. filed petitions for guardianship of G.V. and S.V., R.F.’s and S.V.’s children. R.F. is the mother, and S.V. is the father. C.B. is the children’s maternal grandmother, and she lives in Fargo. Both parents were living in Florida at the time of the hearing. A judicial referee granted C.B. guardianship for three years and restricted the visitation rights of R.F. and S.V. On de novo review, the juvenile court then adopted the referee’s findings and order. At the time of the hearing, G.V. was eight and S.V. was four. C.B. had been taking care of the children since their births. R.F. would sometimes live with C.B., but she would come and go as she pleased, leaving the children with C.B. for extended periods. S.V. sometimes visited the children with R.F. Both parents wanted their children to reside in Florida, and R.F. wanted the children to live with her since she was not incarcerated. R.F. and S.V. provided the juvenile court a letter predating the guardianship petition stating their preference that in the event that they were unable to take care of the children, they wanted them to reside with their paternal grandmother in Florida. The juvenile court found that neither parent has acted as the primary caregiver or parental figure during the children’s lives. The juvenile court found that in Florida neither parent was the primary caregiver for the children; instead they lived for most of that time with their paternal grandmother. R.F. had warrants out for her arrest at the time of the hearing, she has absconded from probation, and she has not been a consistent presence in the children’s lives because of her criminal activity. S.V. also spent time in jail and has voluntarily left the children with C.B. since their births and has not cared for them as required by law. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court did not err in its order appointing a guardian and for restricting contact between the parents and children. View "Interest of G.V." on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed district court orders granting the State’s request for an extension of time to file pleadings, granting two protective orders to Heather Zins, denying two applications to file motions subject to a then existing but subsequently vacated pre-filing order, and a final judgment denying his motion to amend a child support judgment. Rath also argued the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines were unconstitutional. Rath and Zins shared one minor child, A.J.O., born in 2004. The North Dakota Department of Human Services’ Child Support Enforcement Division (“the State”) commenced support proceedings against Rath in 2005 and a judgment ordering child support payments was entered. The judgment was amended in 2008 to establish a parenting plan for A.J.O. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility while Rath received scheduled parenting time. The judgment was modified three different times—in 2009, 2013, and 2016—with the last judgment requiring Rath to pay $366.00 per month. The district court issued an order detailing the applicable provisions of the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines, applying them to the evidence presented at the hearing, and addressing Rath’s constitutional claims. The court denied Rath’s motion to modify his child support judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders granting the State an extension, protection orders on behalf of Zins, and the final judgment denying Rath’s motion to amend his child support obligation. The Court reversed the district court’s orders denying Rath’s applications to file pleadings pursuant to a vacated pre-filing order and remanded to allow for further proceedings. View "Burleigh Cty. Social Service Bd. v. Rath" on Justia Law