Haroldson v. Haroldson
813 N.W.2d 539
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Marty Haroldson and Heidi Klein (formerly Haroldson) stipulated to a 2008 divorce judgment granting joint residential responsibility with equal time for three children.
- The judgment allowed variation of schedules and obligated Klein to pay Haroldson child support under the equal custody offset.
- In 2010 Klein moved to modify primary residential responsibility within two years; Haroldson moved later to modify after two years.
- The district court found Klein did not show change of primary residential responsibility for longer than six months and Haroldson showed a material change in circumstances but not that it was in the children’s best interests to grant him primary residence.
- The court held the equal-residential provision was void as against public policy because it was entered to avoid child support, vacated it, and awarded Klein primary residential responsibility.
- The district court remanded for further findings on best interests; Haroldson appealed seeking reversal or modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May cross-motions modify primary residential responsibility? | Haroldson argues the stipulation precludes modification. | Klein argues modification under § 14-09-06.6 is permissible. | Cross-motions authorized modification framework. |
| Did the equal custody provision violate public policy because it aimed to evade child support? | Haroldson relies on public policy to void equal custody to avoid support. | Klein contends public policy not dispositive; focus is on modification merits. | Court did not rely solely on public policy; proceeding analyzed under § 14-09-06.6. |
| Were findings on best interests sufficient to support a modification to Klein’s favor? | Haroldson contends the court failed to explain why modification serves the children's best interests. | Klein contends record supports best-interest change to Klein. | Findings on best interests were insufficient; remanded for detailed analysis. |
| Did material changes in circumstances support Haroldson’s request under § 14-09-06.6(6)? | Haroldson asserts facts show a material change since order. | Klein argues any change does not warrant modification or is outweighed by other factors. | Record supports material change; but remand to analyze best interests specifically. |
| Should the court address child support issues on remand? | Haroldson requests reconsideration of support in light of new custody findings. | Klein contends need only resolve custody findings first. | Remand ordered; child support unresolved pending custodial findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeller v. Zeller, 640 N.W.2d 53 (ND 2002) (stipulated judgments cannot preclude modification of primary responsibility)
- Thornton v. Klose, 785 N.W.2d 891 (ND 2010) (public policy against using equal custody to dodge support)
- Serr v. Serr, 758 N.W.2d 739 (ND 2008) (analysis of equal custody and statutory framework)
- Boumont v. Boumont, 691 N.W.2d 278 (ND 2005) (off-set provisions and equal custody implications)
- Lee v. Lee, 699 N.W.2d 842 (ND 2005) (public policy against avoiding child support)