Bye v. Robinette
2015 ND 276
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Amanda Robinette and Erek Bye are parents of twin boys; they never married but lived together before and after the births.
- Bye sued for custody; a referee awarded him primary residential responsibility and ordered Robinette to pay child support.
- Robinette sought district court review; the district court adopted the referee’s order.
- Robinette appealed, challenging the custody (primary residential responsibility) award and the child support calculation.
- The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the custody determination as not clearly erroneous but found multiple legal errors in the child support calculation and remanded for recalculation under the guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinette) | Defendant's Argument (Bye) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary residential responsibility award to Bye was erroneous | Award was improper (contested custody) | Referee and district court findings supported award | Affirmed — custody award not clearly erroneous |
| Whether court correctly imputed income to Robinette | Imputation was improper or inadequately supported | Court imputed income under admin rule due to underemployment | Reversed as to child support — imputation findings were vague and insufficient under guidelines |
| Whether child support amount matched guideline for number of children | Court should use correct guideline amount for two children | District court used amount for one child ($590) | Reversed — error of law; guideline amount for two children ($846) should have been used |
| Whether court accounted for Robinette’s other custodial children in support calculation | Must apply adjusted calculations when obligor supports children living with obligor | District court failed to apply special calculation for children living with obligor | Reversed — court failed to apply N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-06.1; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. Krueger, 800 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2011) (standards of review for child support and requirement to follow guidelines)
- Keita v. Keita, 823 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2012) (party seeking deviation must rebut guideline presumption with specific findings)
- Interest of D.L.M., 675 N.W.2d 187 (N.D. 2004) (trial court must clearly show how it arrived at imputed income and support)
- Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1999) (mere recitation of guideline consideration is insufficient)