Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Daniel Peltier appealed an order denying his motion for relief from a child support judgment. Peltier argued the district court erred in denying his motion because the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to decide his child support obligation. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the state district court had concurrent jurisdiction to decide Peltier's child support obligation, and the district court did not err in denying his motion for relief from the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Peltier" on Justia Law

J.G., the mother of minor child J.J.T, appealed a judgment terminating her parental rights to the child. J.G. argued the juvenile court erred: (1) in finding J.J.T. was deprived; (2) in denying her court-appointed counsel's motion for a continuance to prepare for trial; (3) in granting her court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record and appointing that counsel as standby counsel; and (4) in denying her statutory right to counsel. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and in allowing withdrawal of counsel, J.G.'s actions were the functional equivalent of a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of her right to counsel, and the statutory requirements for termination of J.G.'s parental rights were satisfied. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Interest of J.J.T." on Justia Law

Natasha Reiger appealed a district court judgment granting primary residential responsibility of J.Z. to Matthew Zuraff. Social services first became involved with the family because of a positive methamphetamine screening when J.Z. was born. Both Zuraff and Reiger had a history of methamphetamine use, although Reiger testified to being sober for approximately ten months and Zuraff testified he was sober for over three years. Both parents had criminal histories related to drug use, and Zuraff was incarcerated for approximately seven months after J.Z. was born. The North Dakota social worker assigned to J.Z. declined to recommend who should be awarded primary residential responsibility, but noted Zuraff was previously the more appropriate and stable option. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion granting primary residential responsibility to Zuraff. View "Zuraff v. Reiger" on Justia Law

Natasha Reiger appealed a district court judgment granting primary residential responsibility of J.Z. to Matthew Zuraff. Social services first became involved with the family because of a positive methamphetamine screening when J.Z. was born. Both Zuraff and Reiger had a history of methamphetamine use, although Reiger testified to being sober for approximately ten months and Zuraff testified he was sober for over three years. Both parents had criminal histories related to drug use, and Zuraff was incarcerated for approximately seven months after J.Z. was born. The North Dakota social worker assigned to J.Z. declined to recommend who should be awarded primary residential responsibility, but noted Zuraff was previously the more appropriate and stable option. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion granting primary residential responsibility to Zuraff. View "Zuraff v. Reiger" on Justia Law

Christopher Johnson appealed an amended judgment ordering him to pay $1,280 per month in child support. Heather Thompson cross-appealed the judgment denying her request for attorney's fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding the district court failed to calculate Johnson's income in accordance with the child support guidelines. View "Thompson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Alexander Ferguson appealed a fourth amended judgment increasing his child support obligation. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court retained jurisdiction to modify his child support obligation under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), as enacted in N.D.C.C. ch. 14-12.2, and that the court did not err in determining his support obligation. View "Ferguson v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Kevin Hoff appealed a divorce judgment that, among other things, determined a parenting plan for the parties' children. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court's parenting plan decision was supported by sufficient findings and was not clearly erroneous. "A district court need not make separate findings for each best interests factor but, as with custody, the court's findings must contain sufficient specificity to show the factual basis for the decision." View "Hoff v. Hoff" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule to allow an overnight, out-of-state family vacation during the summer of 2018 and awarding attorney fees to Kayla Rath. He argued the district court improperly denied his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule and abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees. He further argued the trial judge acted prejudicially and with bias, warranting immediate recusal and relief through this Court's issuance of a supervisory writ. A claim for relief is frivolous only if there is such a complete absence of actual facts or law a reasonable person could not have expected a court would render a judgment in that person's favor. The authority to issue supervisory writs is exercised rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases in which there is no adequate alternative remedy. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule, reversed the court's award of attorney fees, and denied his request for a supervisory writ. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

A.D., the mother of P.T.D., C.R.D., P.A.D., P.P.D., and N.A.D., appealed a juvenile court order finding her five children were deprived under N.D.C.C. 27-20-02(8). The North Dakota Supreme Court previously concluded the juvenile court did not make sufficient findings of fact and remanded the case for further findings. Upon review of the additional findings, the Court affirmed the juvenile court's Amended Juvenile Findings of Fact and Order for Disposition entered on December 15, 2017. Those additional findings included: (1)one or more of the children were afraid in the family home because of the respondents' arguing and fighting; (2) one or more of the children did not feel safe in the family home; (3) one or more of the children had been physically harmed from being slapped, "smacked," or thrown; (4) one or more of the children usually "got crackers for breakfast when the parents would sleep in, and sometimes toast;" (5) the oldest child (then approximately 11 years old) would assume parental responsibilities when the respondents would sleep in until 11:00 a.m. or noon and when the respondents would leave the home sometimes as late as 9:00 p.m.; (6) the living conditions for the children were unsanitary and unsafe, including the house being a mess with garbage, dirty dishes, and dirty diapers; (7) the children were exposed to domestic violence; (8) one of the respondents broke down a door into a bedroom where the other respondent had fled with the children following an argument; and (9) respondents did not make sufficient efforts to participate in the recommended marriage counseling, anger and depression counseling, or counseling for coping with stress. View "Interest of P.T.D.; C.R.D.; P.A.D.; P.P.D.; and N.A.D." on Justia Law

Gene Grasser appealed an amended judgment entered from March 2017, awarding primary residential responsibility to Stephanie Grasser and distributing marital property and debts. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gene's request for recusal or by finding Gene in contempt and awarding sanctions which it did not reimburse. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court did not clearly err by awarding Stephanie primary residential responsibility of the parties' child or by distributing the parties' marital property and debts. View "Grasser v. Grasser" on Justia Law