Haag v. Haag
2016 ND 34
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Heather and Michael Haag divorced in 2009; the district court adopted the parties’ stipulation giving equal residential responsibility for their minor child.
- In October 2014 Heather moved to modify primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support, alleging Michael’s ongoing alcohol/drug use (including a 2014 cocaine-possession conviction), prior convictions for boating under the influence, and prior physical abuse witnessed by the child.
- The court granted an ex parte interim order placing Michael on supervised visitation and found Heather had established a prima facie case for modification pending an evidentiary hearing.
- After hearing, the court denied Heather’s motion, finding Heather’s evidence largely showed pre-divorce misconduct known to the parties and therefore not a material change in circumstances; the court did not reach the best-interests factors.
- The Supreme Court held the district court misapplied the law by treating conduct known to the parties as equivalent to conduct known to the court and concluded the court should have considered pre-divorce facts the trial court was unaware of when the prior stipulation was adopted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heather proved a "material change in circumstances" warranting review of custody | Michael’s substance abuse, criminal convictions, domestic violence history, and decline in child’s condition are material changes | These problems were known to the parties before the divorce, so not a material change | Reversed: trial court misapplied law; pre-divorce conduct unknown to the court can establish material change |
| Whether court needed to evaluate best-interest factors after finding material change | If material change exists, modification is required only if in child’s best interests | No modification because no material change; thus court did not evaluate best interests | Remanded: court must consider N.D.C.C. §14-09-06.2(1) best-interest factors on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Regan v. Lervold, 844 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court custody modification findings)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 775 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 2009) (burden on moving party to prove material change and best interests)
- Lechler v. Lechler, 786 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 2010) (definition of material change and relevance of pre-divorce conduct when court was unaware)
- Hageman v. Hageman, 827 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 2013) (when prior order was based on a stipulation, court must consider evidence the trial court lacked at that time)
- Krueger v. Tran, 822 N.W.2d 44 (N.D. 2012) (pre-divorce conduct may be considered if the court was unaware at time of stipulation)
- Kourajian v. Kourajian, 744 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 2008) (distinguishing material-change claims where court already knew of the relevant problem)
- Mowan v. Berg, 862 N.W.2d 523 (N.D. 2015) (domestic-violence evidence as a factor in custody and potential rebuttable presumption against perpetrator)