994 N.W.2d 151
N.D.2023Background
- This appeal arises from a divorce judgment awarding primary residential responsibility for two children to Signe Edison; Jeffrey Edison appealed alleging gender bias in the custody decision and error in imputing income for child support.
- After a three-day trial the district court found several best-interest factors favored Signe, repeatedly emphasizing Signe’s breastfeeding of the infant and her education/experience as reasons to award primary residential responsibility.
- Jeffrey filed a post-judgment “motion” invoking Rules 52(b), 59(j), 60(a), and 60(b)(1); the Supreme Court held he did not waive the gender-bias argument because his motion sought amendment/relief, not a Rule 59(b) new trial.
- The Supreme Court concluded the district court’s custody finding was clearly erroneous because it relied significantly on sex-based generalizations (breastfeeding as a mother-only advantage) and remanded for new findings under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.2(1).
- The Court also reversed the underemployment/imputed-income determination for child support because the district court failed to (1) compare gross income to a published statewide average and (2) establish gross income (it relied on adjusted gross income); the matter was remanded for recalculation.
- The Supreme Court declined to reassign the case to a new judge on remand, finding the judge’s familiarity with an extensive record and a misapplication of law (not demonstrated actual bias) favored retention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Signe) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of gender-bias claim on appeal | Jeffrey’s post-judgment motion did not preserve new issues; he waived the gender-bias argument | Motion sought amendment/relief under Rules 52(b)/59(j)/60 — not a Rule 59(b) new trial; issue preserved | No waiver — motion was for amendment/relief, so gender-bias claim preserved on appeal |
| Whether custody award was based on impermissible gender bias | Court’s findings were proper and supported by evidence (breastfeeding, education, parental-capacity evaluation) | District court relied on sex-based generalizations (breastfeeding as mother-only advantage); misapplied law | Reversed and remanded — findings clearly erroneous because court gave significant weight to sex-based generalizations (breastfeeding) in violation of N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑29(1) |
| Request to reassign judge on remand | Reassignment necessary due to apparent bias in custody reasoning | Keep same judge; misapplication of law does not require reassignment | Denied — judge’s familiarity with voluminous record and absence of demonstrated actual bias weigh against reassignment |
| Underemployment / imputed income for child support | Court properly imputed income and calculated support | District court erred: failed to compare gross income to statewide averages and used adjusted gross income instead of gross income | Reversed — court must compare gross income to published statewide averages and make a gross-income finding before imputing income; remand to recalculate child support |
Key Cases Cited
- Rustad v. Rustad, 849 N.W.2d 607 (2014) (district court must avoid sex-based stereotypes; limited significance of isolated gender-based comment when overall findings support decision)
- Kasprowicz v. Kasprowicz, 575 N.W.2d 921 (1998) (rejecting "tender years"/gender-based presumptions in custody determinations)
- Klein v. Larson, 724 N.W.2d 565 (2006) (best-interests standard governs initial custody decisions)
- Schrodt v. Schrodt, 971 N.W.2d 861 (2022) (administrative rule requires use of statewide average earnings when finding underemployment)
- Halberg v. Halberg, 777 N.W.2d 872 (2010) (court must determine gross income, not rely solely on adjusted gross income, before imputing income)
- Grossman v. Lerud, 857 N.W.2d 92 (2014) (mixed standards of review for child support: law de novo, facts clearly erroneous)
- T.F. James Co. v. Vakoch, 628 N.W.2d 298 (2001) (factors for deciding whether to reassign a judge on remand)
- O’Hara v. Schneider, 890 N.W.2d 831 (2017) (remand for findings when court misapplies legal standard)