Harmon v. State
2012 ND 83
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Original stipulated custody order (April 2008) gave Vining primary residential responsibility with Renton entitled to substantial supervised parenting time.
- In May 2009–February 2010, Vining engaged in a relationship with Corcione and contemplated moving to Georgia with the child.
- January–March 2010, Vining moved to Georgia with the child without informing Renton and refused to disclose the child’s Georgia address.
- Renton sought contempt and the court limited Vining’s ability to travel with the child and ordered a parenting plan; temporary orders favored Renton’s parenting time.
- February–April 2011, affidavits and testimony addressed Vining’s address, employment, and marital status; Renton sought modification of custody.
- April 2011 the district court granted Renton’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility; amended judgment entered June 2011 granting Renton primary custody and a parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a modification of primary residential responsibility was properly warranted | Vining argues no material change justifies modification and that stability favors continued custody | Renton contends a material change occurred and modification serves the child’s best interests | Yes; modification proper after material change and best interests warranted |
| Whether the district court properly weighed best interests factors against custodial stability | Vining contends the court misapplied the standard by focusing on initial custody factors | Renton argues factors were weighed against custodial stability as required in modification cases | Yes; court weighed §14-09-06.2(1) factors with stability backdrop and found modification necessary |
| Whether other remedies were required to be attempted before changing custody | Vining asserts court should have pursued less drastic remedies | Renton contends circumstances warranted modification as a rare remedy under §14-09-06.6 | No error; modification warranted given repeated frustration of parenting time and stability concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 ND 37 (2002) (two-step best interests analysis with modification backdrop; burden on movant to show material change)
- Myers v. Myers, 1999 ND 194 (1999) (custody decisions balance stability and change; close-call presumption in favor of custodial parent)
- Anderson v. Resler, 2000 ND 183 (2000) (stability of custodial relationship is central in modification)
- Frieze v. Frieze, 2005 ND 53 (2005) (frustration of parenting time may justify modification; rarity of changing custody first remedy)
- Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 2000 ND 1 (2000) (modification allowed when frustration of parenting time affects child; statutory context)
- Loll v. Loll, 1997 ND 51 (1997) (considerations of stability and best interests in custody disputes)
- Barstad v. Barstad, 499 N.W.2d 584 (N.D. 1993) (early authority on stability and best interests in custody)
- Sweeney v. Sweeney, 2002 ND 206 (2002) (restraint in modifying custody; balance competing rights)
- Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15 (2004) (modification remedies and custody framework (overruled in part by Green))
- Hill v. Weber, 1999 ND 74 (1999) (statutory guidance prevails when conflict with case law)
- Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162 (2009) (recent statutory interpretation affecting modification standards)