938 N.W.2d 413
N.D.2020Background
- Royce and Jill Carlson married in 2015; Royce is the biological father of two minor children whom Jill adopted in 2017.
- Royce filed for divorce in February 2018; a two-day trial occurred in February 2019.
- Trial testimony included an incident where Royce admitted shooting a gun into the air during a quarrel involving Jill and one child, and conflicting testimony about Royce’s repeated use of corporal punishment.
- The district court awarded Royce primary residential responsibility and decisionmaking authority over certain daycare and non-emergency medical decisions, finding best-interest factors a, d, and h favored Royce and most other factors neutral; it expressly found “There is no credible evidence of domestic violence in this matter.”
- The Supreme Court found the record contained evidence that could implicate domestic violence and remanded for specific findings on whether the statutory domestic-violence presumption applies and how any findings affect other best-interest factors and the custody award; jurisdiction retained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court clearly erred in handling evidence of domestic violence under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) | Jill argues the court ignored credible evidence (shooting incident, corporal punishment) and failed to make required findings whether the statutory presumption applies | Royce and district court concluded there was no credible evidence of domestic violence and did not apply the presumption | Remanded: court must make specific findings on whether the presumption applies; if not, explain why the evidence does not change the custody award and how factor j affects other factors |
| Whether the statutory presumption (parent perpetrated domestic violence may not be awarded residential responsibility) was triggered | Jill contends the facts may trigger the presumption (dangerous weapon incident and pattern of conduct) | Royce disputes that the evidence meets the statutory threshold | Remanded for determination whether the presumption is triggered and, if so, whether it is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the district court gave sufficiently detailed findings so appellate court can understand its rationale | Jill argues findings were insufficient given the centrality of domestic-violence evidence | District court provided conclusory finding of no credible domestic violence without detailed explanation | Remanded with instruction to provide detailed, specific findings tying facts to the statutory framework and explaining effect on custody decision |
| Whether other appellate issues need resolution now | Jill raised additional challenges to other best-interest factor findings | Royce defended the district court’s overall custody determinations | Court declined to decide remaining arguments as unnecessary pending required remand findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mowan v. Berg, 2015 ND 95, 862 N.W.2d 523 (district court must make specific findings when addressing the domestic-violence presumption)
- Law v. Whittet, 2014 ND 69, 844 N.W.2d 885 (evidence of violence must be considered even if presumption not triggered)
- Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148, 836 N.W.2d 598 (domestic violence dominates custody-factor hierarchy when credible)
- Zuo v. Wang, 2019 ND 211, 932 N.W.2d 360 (standard of review for primary residential responsibility findings)
- Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153, 718 N.W.2d 552 (appellate court requires specific findings on presumption application)
- Boeckel v. Boeckel, 2010 ND 130, 785 N.W.2d 213 (findings must be sufficiently detailed to show basis for custody decision)
- Lechler v. Lechler, 2010 ND 158, 786 N.W.2d 733 (corporal punishment not necessarily domestic violence unless excessive)
- Simons v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 ND 190, 803 N.W.2d 587 (use of force as punishment does not automatically make a child an abused child)