Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kyle Mackey appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify parenting time and petition for non-parental visitation. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that Mackey failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of parenting time. Moreover, the Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist justifying non-parental visitation for Amber Mackey. View "Bredeson v. Mackey" on Justia Law

G.R.'s father, W.R., appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. W.R. argued the juvenile court erred in finding the causes and conditions of the deprivation were likely to continue and finding the termination of his parental rights was necessary to avoid serious physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child. The Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous, and accordingly affirmed that court's order. View "Interest of G.R." on Justia Law

Mother S.L.-C., and father N.P., separately appealed a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their three children. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court's findings that the children were deprived and had been in foster care more than 450 out of the previous 660 nights were supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous. As such, the Court affirmed the termination of both parties' parental rights. View "Interest of R.L.-P." on Justia Law

Branden Schwalk appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not err in holding Schwalk's motion was not supported by the law and the evidence. View "Schwalk v. Schwalk" on Justia Law

Melissa Horacek appealed a judgment granting Richard Lucas's motion to change primary residential responsibility for their minor child from Horacek to Lucas. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to explain its decision to change primary residential responsibility to Lucas, the case was reversed and remanded for further findings. View "Lucas v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Trista Conzemius appealed, and Chad Conzemius cross-appealed a divorce judgment that awarded Trista child support, denied her spousal support, determined residential responsibility for the parties' minor child, and divided the parties' marital property. Finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce judgment. View "Conzemius v. Conzemius" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to hold Kayla Rath in contempt and denying his request that the district court judge recuse himself from the case. The parties were divorced in January 2013 and Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility for the couple's two minor children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time to occur at the Family Safety Center while he was undergoing a domestic violence offender treatment program and a psychological evaluation, after which he could move for review of his parenting time schedule. A "no contact" order was in place during the divorce proceedings. Less than two months after entry of the divorce judgment, Mark brought a motion for an order to show cause why Kayla should not be held in contempt for violating provisions of the divorce judgment. Mark submitted two affidavits claiming Kayla violated various parenting provisions in the judgment. Kayla denied the allegations. Toward the end of the hearing, Mark requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. The court denied the contempt motion, finding Kayla "did not intentionally disobey the terms of the Judgment and . . . her conduct did not constitute contempt." The court also denied the request for recusal, reasoning Mark "stated no specific instances or evidence to support his claim of lack of impartiality." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Gary Houim appealed an order denying his motion to modify residential responsibility for a child he had with Clara Ann Thompson (f/k/a Engh). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Houim's affidavit and supporting documents established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Morton County Social Service Board v. Houim" on Justia Law

Albert Krueger appealed trial court orders finding him in contempt of court for willfully failing to pay his spousal support obligation to Shirley Krueger and denying his motion to modify the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in refusing to eliminate the spousal support obligation, did not err in finding Krueger in contempt of court for failing to pay his court-ordered spousal support, and did not err in admitting evidence regarding alleged physical limitations imposed upon his ability to work. View "Krueger v. Krueger" on Justia Law

B.B. appealed a trial court judgment establishing him as the father of the child, J.Z.T., and ordering him to reimburse the State for past support paid on behalf of the child and to pay future child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the state court's exercise of jurisdiction did not infringe on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's right of self-government, as claimed by B.B. View "North Dakota v. B.B." on Justia Law