Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Robert Huss appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from contacting S.L.W. (a minor) for a period of two years. In November 2013, S.L.W.'s mother petitioned the district court for a domestic violence protection order against Huss on S.L.W.'s behalf, alleging Huss had sexually abused S.L.W. S.L.W. was nine years old at the time, and her mother and Huss were married, but were in the process of divorcing. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court abused its discretion in admitting the child's hearsay statements about sexual abuse, which constituted the only evidence supporting issuance of the protection order. View "S.L.W. v. Huss" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed a district court order that found him in contempt of court for violating provisions of his divorce judgment. Mark also argued the trial court erred in refusing to find Kayla Rath in contempt of court, and in modifying the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to find Kayla in contempt of court and in finding Mark in contempt, but the Court concluded the court erred in amending the judgment without a motion or notice. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

S.W.S. appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to T.R.C. S.W.S. is the father and C.M.C. is the mother of T.R.C., who was born in 2011. The child was taken into custody of Traill County Social Services in late 2012, based on abandonment by C.M.C. A reunification plan was developed for each parent for reunification with the child. Close to a year later, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of S.W.S. and C.M.C. C.M.C. appeared at an initial hearing and advised the court that she wished to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to the child. A termination hearing was held and various witnesses testified, including the father, the father's wife, and the child's social worker. There was evidence presented about conditions in the father's home, the father's employment, and the father's chemical dependency. After the hearing, the juvenile court ordered termination of both parents' parental rights. The court found the child was deprived and the deprivation was likely to continue. The court also found it was contrary to T.R.C.'s welfare to continue to live with his parents, reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for removing the child and to make reunification possible, and termination was in T.R.C.'s best interests. After review of S.W.S's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court's findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision. View "Interest of T.R.C." on Justia Law

Jerry Shae appealed a district court order for amended judgment on Colette Shae's motion to modify child support obligations, requiring Jerry to pay $39,634.82 per month in child support, medical expenses for his children and Colette Shae's $24,959.46 in attorney fees. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's modified child support award was clearly erroneous and the district court incorrectly calculated Jerry Shae's 2012 net income. View "Shae v. Shae" on Justia Law