Hammeren v. Hammeren
823 N.W.2d 482
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Allen Hammeren and Kelli Hammeren married in 2001, have one child born in 2000, and each party has a child from a prior relationship.
- The parties separated in July 2010 and disputed parenting arrangements during divorce proceedings.
- In May 2011, a trial addressed residential responsibility and parenting plans; the court awarded Kelli primary residential responsibility and granted Allen parenting time.
- The court ordered Allen to pay child support to Kelli in the amount of $1,014 per month commencing October 1, 2010.
- After judgment, Allen moved to alter or amend, seeking a different support start date and credits for prior payments; the court allowed a $4,728 credit but kept October 1, 2010 as the start date.
- The trial court analyzed best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1), rejected Allen’s equal 50/50 proposal as too disruptive, and noted both parents were highly involved; the child’s testimony was deemed unnecessary for determining custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the award of primary residential responsibility to Kelli was clearly erroneous | Hammeren contends evidence favored a shared plan and that findings were sparse | Hammeren argues trial court properly weighed factors and favored stability | Not clearly erroneous; court's findings supported the decision |
| Whether the trial court properly applied best-interest factors (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i) | Hammeren claims findings were sparse and biased against him | Hammeren asserts court still supported its determinations with record evidence | Findings supported by record; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the start date and credits for child support were correctly decided | Hammeren argues trial court erred in starting support in October 2010 and denying further relief | Hammeren acknowledges some payments but disputes the start date and calculations | Trial court did not abuse discretion; credits awarded but start date maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Seay v. Seay, 2012 ND 179 (ND 2012) (best interests framework for custodial decisions)
- Morris v. Moller, 2012 ND 74 (ND 2012) (careful consideration of best-interest factors; deferential review)
- Miller v. Mees, 2011 ND 166 (ND 2011) (standard for reviewing custody findings)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (ND 2010) (requirement for specificity in findings supporting custody decisions)
- Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167 (ND 2003) (discretion in admitting or excluding evidence; Rule 61 principles)
- Novak v. Novak, 441 N.W.2d 656 (ND 1989) (custodial preference considerations for mature children)