Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

K.H. appealed a juvenile court permanency order extending placement of his daughter, T.H., in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services until June 1, 2012. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed because the hearing to extend the permanency order was not held before the prior permanency order expired as required under N.D.C.C. section 27-20-36. View "Interest of T.H." on Justia Law

Michiel Nuveen appealed a district court judgment deviating upward from the Child Support Guidelines and ordering him to pay $3,620.00 per month in child support. On appeal he argued the district court made a mathematical error. Finding that the district court did not misapply the statutory guidelines in calculating child support, nor did it abuse its discretion in deviating from those guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Nuveen v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

Child S.B., is an orphan. Her mother and presumed father are dead. No one claimed custody through either parent. K.F. and M.F. physically had the child and claimed to be "private foster parents" even though they were not related to the child and appeared to have no legal authority for their possession. J.H. "gave" them the child. J.H. is not related to S.B., but thought he might be "technically the guardian" even though the record reflected no appointment as a guardian. D.E. believed he was the biological father, and sued, seeking to establish his paternity of S.B. D.E. named K.F. and M.F. as defendants, apparently because they physically had the child. K.F. and M.F. objected to the paternity action going forward, and the district court dismissed the case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the child and that K.F. and M.F. had no right to challenge the paternity action as they did. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.E. v. K.F." on Justia Law

Christina Deyle appealed the district court judgment granting Eric Deyle primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of primary residential responsibility to Eric Deyle. However, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings because the district court failed to adequately explain its denial of summer parenting time, interim child support and attorney fees. View "Deyle v. Deyle" on Justia Law

William Falconer appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from coming within 500 feet of Bridget Niska for three years, an order granting Niska temporary custody of the parties' minor child, and a mandate ordering visitation exchanges for the child through Falconer's mother. Falconer claimed that the court erred in issuing a domestic violence protection order based on an incident of domestic violence that occurred more than seven years ago, that he acted in self-defense in the incident seven years ago, and that Niska used the process for procuring a protection order to thwart his visitation with the parties' minor child and as a means to punish him for the parties' failing relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the judicial referee's findings were insufficient to understand the basis for the referee's decision, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Niska v. Falconer" on Justia Law

Mohamed Keita appealed a divorce judgment that awarded Jennifer Keita primary residential responsibility for the parties' minor child, granted Mohamed Keita supervised parenting time for the child, denied Mohamed Keita joint decision-making authority for the child, distributed the parties' marital property, awarded Jennifer Keita attorney fees, and reserved jurisdiction for a future spousal support award. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in awarding of attorney fees and distributing property, but that the court erred in awarding supervised parenting time, child support, and in reserving jurisdiction for future spousal support. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Keita v. Keita" on Justia Law

Bradley Dean Jordet and his attorney, Jonathan T. Garaas, appealed orders denying Bradley Jordet's motion to allow him to setoff his spousal support arrearages against Tracy Lyndal Jordet's child support arrearages, and holding Garaas in contempt and fining him $1,000 for intentional disobedience of the district court's earlier order. The Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a setoff, but did abuse its discretion in holding Garaas in contempt. Therefore the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Jordet v. Jordet" on Justia Law

Richie Fonder appealed a judgment that awarded him and Bobbi Fonder equal primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children and an order that denied his motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) for reconsideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(j) motion and did not clearly err in awarding equal primary residential responsibility to him and Bobbi Fonder. View "Fonder v. Fonder" on Justia Law

Allen Hammeren appealed a divorce judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility and child support to Kelli Hammeren and an order that denied his post-judgment motion to reconsider the effective date of his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility and did not abuse its discretion when awarding child support commencing October 1, 2010, the Court affirmed. View "Hammeren v. Hammeren" on Justia Law

Hau Tran appealed a district court order granting Shannon Krueger's motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their child. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's decision to modify primary residential responsibility was not clearly erroneous. View "Krueger v. Tran" on Justia Law