Forster v. Flaagan
2016 ND 12
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Parents: Adam Flaagan (father, appellant) and Lindsay Forster/Seitz (mother, appellee); child J.F.F.; 2010 judgment awarded mother primary residential responsibility and father parenting time.
- In May 2015, Flaagan moved to modify primary residential responsibility, alleging a material change in circumstances since 2010 (behavioral decline of child and mother's remarriage/added children) and that modification would serve the child’s best interests.
- Flaagan submitted an affidavit with exhibits from the child’s teacher describing increased behavioral problems and declining academics, and attested that the child behaved better while in his care; he also alleged the mother remarried and had two younger children since the 2010 order.
- The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Flaagan failed to establish a prima facie case: it concluded Flaagan did not show a material change with a sufficient nexus to the mother’s care and failed to show modification would be in the child’s best interests (noting lack of residence details).
- On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether Flaagan established a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6) (material change since prior order + necessary for child’s best interests) and the statutory prima facie screening provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flaagan established a prima facie showing of a material change in circumstances | Flaagan: child’s behavioral decline and mother’s remarriage/additional children constitute material change, supported by affidavit and teacher exhibits | Forster: allegations insufficient, mother’s remarriage and children not material; child’s behavioral issues predate judgment | Court: Reversed — Flaagan made a prima facie showing of material change; disputed facts cannot be resolved at prima facie stage |
| Whether Flaagan showed prima facie that modification is necessary for the child’s best interests | Flaagan: he provides stable home, supervises homework, child behaves better with him; mother unwilling to address issues | Forster: disputes limitations in her care and challenges Flaagan’s assertions; notes lack of details about child’s residence if moved | Court: Reversed — Flaagan’s corroborated allegations suffice for a prima facie showing; best-interest disputes require evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the district court properly weighed competing affidavits at prima facie stage | Flaagan: court impermissibly weighed evidence and required proof rather than accepting competent allegations as true | Forster: contested facts argued to defeat the motion without hearing | Court: Reversed — district court improperly weighed conflicts and required movant to prove case at prima facie stage |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before denying modification | Flaagan: statutory process requires denial only if no prima facie case; here prima facie shown | Forster: supporting affidavits insufficient to mandate hearing | Court: Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Jensen, 835 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2013) (prima facie standard for modification is a "bare minimum"; movant’s allegations must be accepted if supported by competent evidence)
- Kartes v. Kartes, 831 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 2013) (affidavits must contain competent, first-hand information; prima facie standard explained)
- Frueh v. Frueh, 745 N.W.2d 362 (N.D. 2008) (remarriage of a parent may constitute a material change of circumstances)
- Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 1995) (child’s behavioral change may be considered in material change analysis)
- Hagel v. Hagel, 512 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 1994) (behavioral change as factor in custody modification)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 758 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2008) (not every change in circumstances warrants custody change; materiality is case-specific)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 846 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 2014) (prima facie case is not rebutted by mere conflicting evidence)
- Schumacker v. Schumacker, 796 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 2011) (factual disputes should be resolved at evidentiary hearing)