951 N.W.2d 247
N.D.2020Background
- Vickie (Lenard) and Jeffrey Gooss divorced in Nevada (2004); Nevada awarded Lenard primary residence of the child and ordered Jeffrey to pay $350/month (including $50 arrears), with a plan provision tying travel obligations to support in certain relocations.
- Subsequent Nevada orders (2009, 2013) adjusted custody/relocation terms and stated that payment of travel expenses "will constitute child support thereafter."
- Jeffrey later moved to North Dakota; Lenard and the child lived in South Dakota. South Dakota’s child support program asked North Dakota to review and modify Jeffrey’s support obligation.
- The State of North Dakota moved to modify support (seeking $709/month); Jeffrey challenged jurisdiction (arguing travel/parenting-time terms are custody matters under UCCJEA), the support calculation, equity, and sought a deviation for travel expenses.
- The district court held it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), treated travel expenses as part of the child support order, applied a downward deviation of $3,000 for travel (finding Jeffrey actually exercised 4 of 7 permitted visits), and entered a second amended judgment requiring $582/month support.
- Jeffrey appealed; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding UIFSA jurisdiction proper, travel expenses qualify as child support, deviations under guidelines are permissible, and the court did not abuse discretion in calculating the travel deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Lenard's Argument | Gooss's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state order | North Dakota may modify under UIFSA because parties and child no longer reside in issuing state and petitioner sought modification here | Modification is barred because travel/parenting plan terms are custody matters governed by UCCJEA | UIFSA requirements met; ND court had authority to modify the child support order under UIFSA |
| Characterization of travel expenses | Travel costs were intended as part of the support order (Nevada language) | Travel costs are part of custody/parenting plan and thus outside UIFSA/within UCCJEA protection | Travel expenses are a monetary child support obligation and fall under UIFSA, not the UCCJEA exclusion for custody orders |
| Equity / permissibility of including travel costs in support | State: guidelines allow deviation for travel; including travel expenses is allowable and not inequitable if guidelines applied | Gooss: making him bear travel costs is inequitable and improper without deviation | Court may include travel expenses and apply guideline-authorized deviations; inclusion here was not inequitable when guidelines and deviation were applied |
| Calculation of travel-exense deviation | Use the parenting-plan allowed visits (7) to compute travel burden | Use actual exercised visits (court found 4) to compute deviation; deviation should reflect actual practices | Court permissibly considered "actual expenses and practices" and used 4 visits; no abuse of discretion in granting $3,000 downward deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Harshberger v. Harshberger, 724 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 2006) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
- Ferguson v. Wallace-Ferguson, 911 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 2018) (interpret UIFSA and uniform-law harmonization)
- Schirado v. Foote, 785 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 2010) (purpose and scope of UCCJEA to avoid interstate custody conflicts)
- Grossman v. Lerud, 857 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 2014) (standards of review for child support determinations)
- Lohstreter v. Lohstreter, 623 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2001) (court must explain how it arrived at income and support amounts)
- Tibor v. Tibor, 623 N.W.2d 12 (N.D. 2001) (burden to prove deviation by preponderance; deviations discretionary)
- Pember v. Shapiro, 794 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for deviation and child-support adjustments)