Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Anna Holmes appealed a district court order denying an evidentiary hearing on her motion for change of custody. Because the Supreme Court concluded Holmes met her burden of establishing a prima facie case justifying modification, it reversed the district court order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Wald v. Holmes" on Justia Law

C.G. appealed a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights and directing him to pay child support for his son, C.N. C.G. argued that the juvenile court was clearly erroneous in finding C.N. was a deprived child and that aggravated circumstances warrant termination. C.G. also argued the juvenile court erred in ordering C.G. to pay child support despite terminating his parental rights. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment terminating the parental rights of C.G. and ordering him to provide child support. View "Interest of C.N." on Justia Law

The biological father of a minor child appealed an order terminating his parental rights to the child and an order granting a petition for adoption of the child. The father argued he did not fail to communicate with and fail to manifest a significant parental interest in his child without justifiable cause when, while he was incarcerated, the biological mother obtained a protection order against him, returned all correspondence and packages sent by him or his family, refused all phone or electronic communications from his family, and refused any visitation between the child and him or any of his family. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders terminating the biological father's parental rights and granting the adoption. View "Adoption of I.R.R." on Justia Law

Wayne Kukla appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court granted Roberta ("Bobbi") Marie Kukla's motion to amend and vacate a 2004 divorce judgment. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting Bobbi Kukla's motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Therefore the amended judgment was reversed and the 2004 divorce judgment was reinstated. View "Kukla v. Kukla" on Justia Law