923 N.W.2d 106
N.D.2019Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Hagen sought primary residential responsibility, child support, and defined parenting time for two children; defendant Charlotte Horst appealed the district court judgment.
- District court entered an emergency ex parte interim custody order and imposed a child support obligation before a full evidentiary hearing.
- Horst argued she was denied due process by the ex parte order and by the failure to appoint counsel; she also challenged the constitutionality of child support and the merits of custody and supervised parenting-time conditions.
- After procedural briefing and evidentiary proceedings, the district court awarded Hagen primary residential responsibility, set child support for Horst, and ordered supervised parenting time until Horst completed parenting/anger-management classes and established residential stability.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota summarily affirmed the district court, finding no constitutional violation, no abuse in declining appointed counsel, child support appropriately calculated, and custody/parenting-time findings not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process re: emergency ex parte custody and interim child support | Hagen: interim order permissible; later hearing cures any defect | Horst: ex parte order deprived her of due process | Court: No due process violation; later notice and evidentiary hearing satisfied due process (Jensen v. Deaver) |
| Right to court-appointed counsel in civil custody matters | Hagen: not applicable | Horst: court should have appointed counsel | Court: No statutory right to appointed counsel here; denial not an abuse of discretion (DuPaul; Riddle) |
| Constitutionality of child support | Hagen: statutory child support is valid | Horst: child support statute is unconstitutional | Court: Horst failed to cite supporting law/facts; court upheld child support and its calculation under statute (Minar; Lauer) |
| Award of primary residential responsibility and conditions on parenting time | Hagen: award supported by best-interest findings; supervised time and class conditions appropriate | Horst: award and conditions were erroneous and punitive | Court: Findings on best-interest factors were specific and not clearly erroneous; conditioning parenting time on classes and stability was supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowley v. Cleaver, 598 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1999) (standard for de novo review of constitutional claims)
- Riemers v. O’Halloran, 678 N.W.2d 547 (N.D. 2004) (party must do more than bare assertions to raise constitutional issues)
- Jensen v. Deaver, 828 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 2013) (due process satisfied by subsequent evidentiary hearing after interim ex parte order)
- State v. DuPaul, 527 N.W.2d 238 (N.D. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of appointed counsel)
- Riddle v. Riddle, 907 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 2018) (civil right to appointed counsel limited to statutory circumstances)
- Minar v. Minar, 625 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2001) (child support: legal questions reviewed de novo; factual findings clearly erroneous standard)
- Lauer v. Lauer, 609 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 2000) (district court must explain how it calculated income and support)
- Richter v. Houser, 598 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 1999) (factual findings on support reversed only if clearly erroneous)
- Rebenitsch v. Rebenitsch, 907 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 2018) (standard of review for primary residential responsibility and parenting time)
- Brouillet v. Brouillet, 875 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2016) (district court has substantial discretion in custody determinations)