Doll v. Doll
794 N.W.2d 425
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Andrew Doll and Sarah Claeys (now Sarah Claeys) were married in 2002; they separated in 2008 and Claeys moved to Fargo, ND.
- A default divorce judgment was entered in 2003; the parties later reconciled but did not remarry, and paternity of the older child RM.D. was acknowledged by Doll.
- Two children: RM.D. (born 2003) and D.A.D. (born 2006); Doll is listed as the father on RM.D.’s birth certificate through paternity acknowledgment.
- Initial parenting schedule after separation was unstable, later adjusted to a three-days-on/three-days-off arrangement; Claeys asserted primary residential responsibility in North Dakota and Doll sought Minnesota proceedings.
- Custody investigator Jason Loos produced a 2009 report favoring Doll for primary residential responsibility, then a 2010 supplemental report recommending shared residential/decision-making responsibility.
- A 3-day trial in February 2010 led the court to award primary residential responsibility to Claeys; Doll appealed challenging the trial court’s findings and weighting of best-interests factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court clearly err in the best interests analysis? | Doll contends error in considering factors and weight. | Claeys argues the court appropriately weighed factors and findings. | No clear error; factors properly analyzed and weighed. |
| Was factor (k) weighting appropriate regarding child interrelationship with household members? | Doll claims undue weight on Claeys' husband and past instability ignored. | Claeys argues factor (k) accounts for current household stability; past issues addressed elsewhere. | No undue weight; factor (k) properly analyzed. |
| Did Claeys’ report of sexual abuse against Doll have proper basis and good faith? | Doll argues the report was untrustworthy and prejudicial. | Claeys testified the report was based on a child's statement and pursued in good faith per investigator guidance. | Report found to be made in good faith; not clearly erroneous. |
| Did the court err by not finding parental alienation warrants sole custody to Doll or otherwise? | Doll alleges Claeys engaged in alienation and interference with parenting time. | Claeys denies willful alienation; evidence insufficient to preclude Claeys from primary custody. | No clear error; trial court properly exercised discretion in weighing alienation evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molitor v. Molitor, 2006 ND 163 (ND 2006) (clear-error standard for custody findings; cannot reweigh credibility)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (ND 2010) (review of custody decisions; defer to trial court’s credibility judgments)
- DesLauriers v. DesLauriers, 2002 ND 66 (ND 2002) (child's intelligent expressible preferences; factor application guidance)
- Dronen v. Dronen, 2009 ND 70 (ND 2009) (rebuttable presumption against giving primary custody to a domestic-violence perpetrator; credibility deference)
- Eifert v. Eifert, 2006 ND 240 (ND 2006) (forward-looking approach to stability when evaluating factor (e))