Anderson v. Jenkins
2013 ND 167
N.D.2013Background
- Jenkins and Anderson divorced in California (2005); joint custody was later modified by a 2009 second amended judgment entered in Grand Forks County, ND, awarding Anderson primary residential responsibility of three minor children.
- Jenkins moved to modify custody in November 2012 (more than two years after the 2009 order); statutory scheme (N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.6) requires a prima facie showing on affidavits for a post‑two‑year modification before an evidentiary hearing is set.
- Jenkins alleged, inter alia, that Anderson: willfully withheld/denied his parenting time; made false statements to Social Services undermining his relationship with the children; took one child to multiple mental‑health providers; mishandled medical information/medication; and failed to share medical expense payments.
- The district court denied Jenkins’ motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding his affidavit was conclusory or insufficient and relying on Anderson’s counter‑affidavits to reject his claims.
- The Supreme Court majority reversed, holding Jenkins’ affidavit established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing; the court found the district court had incorrectly shifted the burden and impermissibly weighed conflicting affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Jenkins’ Argument | Anderson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkins’ affidavit established a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.6(4) to warrant an evidentiary hearing | Jenkins: his affidavits and exhibits (correspondence, medical records, bills) provided competent first‑hand facts showing material changes (denial of parenting time, false statements to Social Services, medical/medication problems) | Anderson: Jenkins’ allegations are conclusory, lack specificity or first‑hand basis, and are rebutted by her counter‑affidavits and records | Majority: Jenkins met the bare‑minimum prima facie standard and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing; district court erred in weighing conflicting affidavits |
| Proper standard and burden at the prima facie stage | Jenkins: court must accept truth of moving party’s allegations and set hearing unless opposing affidavits conclusively disprove them | Anderson: district court applied correct analysis in rejecting Jenkins’ allegations as unsupported | Held: Court reaffirmed that the district court must accept the movant’s allegations unless counter‑affidavits conclusively destroy credibility or allegations are insufficient on their face; district court improperly shifted burden and weighed evidence |
| Whether alleged interference with visitation and withheld parenting time alone can constitute a material change | Jenkins: pattern of frustrated/withheld visitation supports a material change affecting children’s best interests | Anderson: alleged visitation disputes are explained and justified (e.g., Social Services safety concerns) | Held: factual allegations about denied visitation were sufficiently detailed to support a prima facie case and require an evidentiary hearing rather than resolution on affidavits |
| Attorney’s fees request by Anderson on appeal | N/A (Anderson sought fees) | N/A | Held: request for attorney’s fees denied by the Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Schumacker v. Schumacker, 796 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 2011) (affidavits supporting modification must include competent first‑hand information)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 809 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 2012) (material change means important new fact unknown at prior decision)
- Ehli v. Joyce, 789 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 2010) (prima facie case is the bare minimum that, if proved, would support custody change)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 803 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 2011) (opposing affidavits must conclusively negate movant’s allegations before denying hearing)
- Kartes v. Kartes, 831 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 2013) (prima facie requires enough evidence for a factfinder to infer the fact at issue)
- Blotske v. Leidholm, 487 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1992) (modification must show adverse impact on child’s well‑being)