6 N.W.3d 595
N.D.2024Background
- Joseph and Brenda Field divorced in California in 2017, sharing joint legal and physical custody of their minor child.
- California awarded Brenda Field primary physical custody and allowed her to move to North Dakota with the child, transferring venue for future custody matters to North Dakota.
- The original California child support order remained unmodified when custody was altered.
- In 2018, California orders (divorce, child support, and custody) were registered in Burleigh County, North Dakota.
- In July 2023, Joseph Field sought modification of parenting time in North Dakota; the court issued an amended judgment modifying parenting time, expenses, and decisionmaking authority.
- Joseph Field appealed, arguing improper jurisdiction over child support and error in modifying custody and decisionmaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under UIFSA (child support) | California retained exclusive jurisdiction; North Dakota court lacked authority to modify child support | Not detailed (opposed modification generally) | North Dakota court did not interfere with California support; no sufficient record to review jurisdiction claim |
| Modification of child support/shared expenses | North Dakota order improperly increased responsibility, contrary to UIFSA | Not detailed | Claim not supported by record; not adequately briefed |
| Parenting time modification | Not in child’s best interests; district court findings unsupported | Not detailed | District court decision supported by evidence; not clearly erroneous |
| Decisionmaking authority | Unfair for Brenda to have final say post-mediation; wants family coordinator | Not detailed | No clear error; procedure for mediation and final decision upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Brew v. Brew, 903 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 2017) (Burden on appellant to provide record and show reversible error)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 944 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 2020) (Court will not consider inadequately briefed arguments)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (Standard for modifying parenting time—material change and best interests)
- Rath v. Rath, 911 N.W.2d 919 (N.D. 2018) (Standard of review for decisionmaking responsibility in custody matters)
- Dick v. Erman, 923 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 2019) (Allocation of decisionmaking responsibility must meet child’s best interests)