Hageman v. Hageman
2013 ND 29
| N.D. | 2013Background
- SRL, born in 2010, is the child of Nikki LaFromboise and Russell Niffenegger who were never married or cohabitating.
- The parties resided roughly 90 miles apart, with LaFromboise in Devils Lake and Niffenegger in Grand Forks, and Niffenegger visiting SRL every other weekend.
- LaFromboise initially had primary residential responsibility; a 2011 trial led to an order for the parties to alternate custody every other week under a detailed parenting plan.
- Niffenegger sought primary residential responsibility, but the district court awarded joint residential responsibility, determining SRL’s interests were best served by shared custody.
- LaFromboise appeals alleging the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous and that she should have been awarded primary residential responsibility.
- The Supreme Court affirms the district court’s joint-residential arrangement, finding the findings supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was joint residential responsibility proper given the distance between homes? | LaFromboise asserts instability and impracticality of weekly travel undermine joint custody. | Niffenegger contends the district court properly weighed best-interests factors and allowed joint custody. | Not clearly erroneous; joint custody supported by findings. |
| Did the district court properly treat factor (d) stability and weight practicalities of transportation? | LaFromboise argues stability demands heavier weight for primary residence. | Niffenegger contends court appropriately evaluated stability without reweighing all factors. | Court’s factor (d) analysis supported its decision; no clear error. |
| Was factor (h) (home, school, community records) appropriately deemed inapplicable given SRL’s age? | LaFromboise argues factor (h) should apply to SRL’s situation. | Niffenegger maintains factor (h) is inapplicable for a two-year-old with limited community ties. | Yes; inapplicable given SRL’s age and development evidence. |
| Was an express finding of cooperation required before awarding joint residential responsibility? | LaFromboise contends the court should require evidence of cooperation. | Niffenegger notes district court provided a detailed plan and cooperation evidence exists. | Not required; detailed order and willingness to cooperate supported joint custody. |
| May modification be necessary/future despite the two-year window for modification? | LaFromboise argues joint custody will be impractical after SRL reaches school age and remains unmodifiable. | Niffenegger argues modification can occur if statutory grounds are met and is not error to award joint custody anticipating possible change. | Modification possible under statute; award upheld despite anticipated changes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deyle v. Deyle, 825 N.W.2d 245 (ND 2012) (district court broad discretion in best-interests custody factors)
- Martire v. Martire, 822 N.W.2d 450 (ND 2012) (affirmed joint residential responsibility where cooperation may be limited)
- Fonder v. Fonder, 823 N.W.2d 504 (ND 2012) (detailed implementing orders aid joint custody even with uncooperative parents)
- Haroldson v. Haroldson, 813 N.W.2d 539 (ND 2012) (material change in circumstances can arise from new school attendance needs)
- Holtz v. Holtz, 595 N.W.2d 1 (ND 1999) (needs of child may change as they grow, supporting material changes)
- Dufner v. Trottier, 778 N.W.2d 586 (ND 2010) (increased time demands can constitute material change warranting modification)
- Marsden v. Koop, 789 N.W.2d 531 (ND 2010) (courts may reference broad discretion in custody decisions; separate findings may be sufficient)