Boldt v. Boldt
2021 ND 213
| N.D. | 2021Background:
- Married in 2000 with four children; two minor children (age 11 and 9 at trial). Heidi left the marital home in 2019, moved to Flasher where the children attend school; Cliff remained at the marital home near Carson pending its sale.
- Parties settled marital property, debts, spousal support and fees, but reserved parental rights, residential responsibility, and child support for trial.
- At trial Cliff proposed a weekly rotating shared-residential schedule from his rural Carson residence; the court found this would require the children to spend substantial daily time on a school bus on Cliff’s weeks and disrupt their weekly routine.
- The district court awarded Heidi primary residential responsibility, citing stability and continuity for school and activities; it ordered the parties to split children’s health insurance premiums and calculated child support.
- Cliff objected, sought evidentiary hearing to challenge the court’s bus-time finding and offered proof he could transport the children; the court declined to reopen the custody decision but revised child support to allow Cliff to deduct his reimbursed share of premiums from gross income.
- On appeal, Cliff challenged the custody decision as inadequately reasoned and unsupported by evidence; Heidi cross-appealed the child-support deduction ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heidi) | Defendant's Argument (Cliff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding Heidi primary residential responsibility was erroneous | Heidi: Award was proper; stability/continuity and her role as primary caregiver favor her | Cliff: Court failed to analyze best-interest factors sufficiently and evidence supports equal shared parenting | Court affirmed — findings were sufficiently specific, court considered statutory factors, award not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Cliff may deduct his share of children’s health insurance premiums from gross income for child support | Heidi: Deduction not allowed because she pays premiums and the obligor is not covered on the policy | Cliff: He reimbursed Heidi for the children’s premiums and Rule allows deducting portion intended for child coverage | Court affirmed — administrative rule permits deduction of portion of premium payments intended to cover the child even if obligor is not on the policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Topolski v. Topolski, 844 N.W.2d 875 (clarity required for findings supporting custody decisions)
- Vetter v. Vetter, 938 N.W.2d 417 (custody findings reviewed for clear error)
- Zuo v. Wang, 932 N.W.2d 360 (definition and application of "clearly erroneous" standard)
- Mowan v. Berg, 862 N.W.2d 523 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or credibility in custody cases)
- Eubanks v. Fisketjon, 962 N.W.2d 427 (mixed standards of review for child support appeals)
- Hecker v. Stark County Social Service Bd., 527 N.W.2d 226 (administrative rule interpretation reviewed as question of law)