Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

D.V.T., the father of minor child K.J.C., appealed a district court's final decree of adoption, terminating his parental rights and granting a petition for step-parent adoption. The father argued the district court clearly erred in terminating his parental rights and finding his consent to the adoption was not necessary. The father contended there was not clear and convincing evidence he intended to abandon the child. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court concluded evidence supports the court's findings, and, based on the entire record, it was not convinced a mistake had been made. The record reflected the mother and step-father's attorney prepared the proposed written termination order before the hearing terminating the father's rights. "We recognize the court wanted the termination and adoption finalized quickly and the use of a document prepared by one of the parties may save time, but the court has an obligation to ensure the findings are correct." The trial court's written order erred in stating no person appeared at the hearing claiming to be the natural father; however, D.V.T. did appear. The Supreme Court found the error did not require reversal. The Court modified the final decree of adoption to reflect the father was present at the hearing and objected to the petition to terminate his parental rights and grant a step-parent adoption. View "Matter of K.J.C." on Justia Law

Patricia Schurmann (now Heidt), appealed after the district court modified parenting time and child support. She argued the district court failed to properly weigh evidence of domestic violence in increasing Ralf Schurmann's parenting time. She also argued the court should not have reduced child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order regarding parenting time, but reversed and remanded the order regarding child support, finding that the district court relied on unreliable information to calculate child support in this case, and as such, failed to comply with statutory guidelines. The court's child support calculation was clearly erroneous. The judgment was reversed and the remanded for recalculation of child support. View "Schurmann v. Schurmann" on Justia Law

In January 2013, Mark Rath and Kayla Rath divorced. The divorce judgment awarded Kayla primary residential responsibility for the parties' two children, and Mark received supervised parenting time at the Family Safety Center. Mark appealed orders denying his various motions, including motions for orders to show cause, for an ex parte interim order to modify a judgment, and for recusal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to hold Kayla in contempt, did not err in denying Mark's request to modify the judgment, and did not err in conducting a hearing on his motions. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees to Kayla and in refusing to recuse himself from this case. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Heather Haag and Michael Haag were married in 2000 and have one minor child together. The parties divorced in 2009, and the district court adopted the parties' stipulation and ordered the parties have equal residential responsibility of the child. Heather moved to modify primary residential responsibility of the child, parenting time, and child support. She also moved for an ex parte interim order and filed a supporting affidavit and exhibits. She alleged Michael had a long history of using alcohol and drugs, he was arrested for cocaine possession in August 2014, and he was convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol in 2009. She also alleged Michael physically abused her during the marriage and the child witnessed the abuse. The district court granted Heather's motion for an ex parte interim order, and ordered Michael have supervised parenting time two times per week for two hours each visit. The court also found Heather established a prima facie case justifying modification and ordered an evidentiary hearing be held. After a hearing, the district court denied Heather motion to modify primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support, finding that most of the evidence Heather presented focused on Michael's pre-divorce drug and alcohol use and abusive behavior. The court, therefore, concluded Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances, and it did not consider the best interest factors to determine whether modification was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court's decision was induced by an erroneous view of the law, and the court's finding that Heather did not prove a material change in circumstances was "clearly erroneous." View "Haag v. Haag" on Justia Law

Angela Dieterle (now Hansen) appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for failing to cooperate in the sale of marital property and failing to follow a parenting plan. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hansen in contempt, and affirmed. View "Dieterle v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

Marsha Brouillet appealed a divorce judgment that granted primary residential responsibility for the parties' two younger children to Bradley Brouillet, awarded him child support, and divided the parties' marital estate. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's award of primary residential responsibility for the two children, finding of Marsha Brouillet's income in awarding child support, and distribution of marital assets and debts were all supported by the record. View "Brouillet v. Brouillet" on Justia Law

In 2012 Joshua Ritter and Tara McDonald (formerly Ritter) divorced via stipulation. The parties agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility of their two minor children, Joshua's parenting time would be determined by mutual agreement and Tara would reasonably accommodate Joshua's requests for parenting time. The parties' parenting plan allowed Joshua two successive days of uninterrupted parenting time after giving Tara at least forty-eight hours' notice and modification by mutual agreement. The district court adopted the agreed upon parenting plan in its order granting divorce. In 2015, Joshua filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility with supporting affidavit requesting the parties be awarded equal residential responsibility. Joshua's affidavit asserted a change in his employment after the divorce judgment constituted a material change warranting modification of primary residential responsibility. At the time of divorce, Joshua was a commercial airline pilot and was out-of-town up to four nights a week. Because of his unpredictable work schedule, Joshua agreed Tara would have primary residential responsibility. Joshua changed jobs and became a pilot for a Bismarck company and worked a more predictable, weekday schedule. Joshua appealed the district court's order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility of his two children. Joshua argues the district court erred in determining he failed to make a prima facie case that a material change in circumstances existed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court order finding Joshua failed to meet a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Caroline Wanttaja appealed a divorce judgment and from an order denying her motion to correct a clerical error or for a new trial. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to correct a clerical error or for a new trial to address the parties' medical bills. The Court concluded, however, the court erred as a matter of law in failing to address child support in the divorce proceedings and abused its discretion in denying her request for attorney fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wanttaja v. Wanttaja" on Justia Law

Adam Flaagan and Lindsay Forster (now known as Lindsay Seitz) were the parents of J.F.F. A 2010 judgment awarded Forster primary residential responsibility and awarded Flaagan parenting time. Under the judgment, Flaagan's parenting time decreased when J.F.F. started school in fall 2014. In May 2015, Flaagan moved the district court to modify Forster's primary residential responsibility, claiming a material change in J.F.F.'s circumstances occurred since entry of the 2010 judgment. Flaagan appealed the district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. The district court concluded "[Flaagan] has failed to establish that a material change has occurred in the circumstances of the parties or that modification of primary residential responsibility is in J.F.F.'s best interests." Flaagan argued the district court erred in dismissing his motion because the court, in essence, required him to establish his case for modification in order to establish his prima facie case for modification. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded. View "Forster v. Flaagan" on Justia Law

Robert and Tiffany Stock married in 2000. The parties were romantically involved six years prior to the marriage, resulting in the birth of a child, who reached the age of majority. The parties had another child, who was a minor at the time of this case's filing. Throughout their relationship, Tiffany moved multiple times so Robert could complete his undergraduate and legal studies. After he finished law school, the parties moved to Fargo, where Robert began and developed a thriving legal career. The parties separated in October 2011, reconciled shortly thereafter, and permanently separated in January 2012, with Tiffany Stock filing for divorce in January 2013. After trial, the court awarded Tiffany residential responsibility for the minor child. The court ordered Robert to pay child support. In addition, Tiffany requested spousal support. Despite having significant income, the parties lived outside their means for most of their marriage. This state of living caused the parties to incur a great deal of debt. The district court used the Ruff-Fischer guidelines to divide the parties' assets and debts. The court awarded Tiffany spousal support of $3,000 per month until Robert Stock's child support obligation ended. At that time, the support award would increase to $5,500 per month, and the award would continue at that level until either party died or when Tiffany remarried, whichever occurred first. Tiffany also requested attorney's fees. The court determined Tiffany Stock's limited earning capacity left her in need and Robert Stock had the ability to pay the fees along with his other obligations under the judgment. Accordingly, the court ordered him to pay Tiffany Stock's $31,904 outstanding balance. On appeal, Robert Stock argues the district court's award of permanent support and the amount of support awarded were clearly erroneous. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of permanent spousal support and attorney's fees. View "Stock v. Stock" on Justia Law