Horsted v. Horsted, 812 N.W.2d 448

Theresa and Christopher Horsted married in 2009 and have one child, R.M.H. (born 2010).
Theresa filed for divorce; allegations of verbal and physical abuse by Christopher were contested, with one reported incident to law enforcement and prior simple assault charges against Christopher from a former girlfriend.
A custody investigator was appointed after a motion by Christopher; the investigator recommended a graduated parenting time schedule and an anger/domestic violence assessment for Christopher.
The district court awarded joint decisionmaking and adopted Christopher’s proposed parenting plan, while Theresa retained primary residential responsibility.
The court initially ordered both parties to pay half of the custody investigator fees and later amended the parenting plan to address R.M.H.’s adjustment to visitation.
Theresa challenged the joint decisionmaking award, the sufficiency of trial findings, the handling of domestic violence considerations, and the amount of custody investigator fees; the court remanded for additional findings and potential modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joint decisionmaking was proper.	Horsted argues lack of adequate findings and DV considerations.	Horsted contends the plan serves the child’s best interests.	Remand for further findings on best interests and DV considerations.
Whether the court failed to provide sufficient best-interests findings.	Horsted asserts the court did not make explicit best-interests findings.	Horsted contends existing findings were sufficient as to best interests.	Remand to articulate explicit best-interests findings.
Whether there was an appropriate dispute-resolution mechanism for joint decisionmaking.	Horsted argues the court failed to outline dispute-resolution methods.	Horsted acknowledges dispute-resolution attempt via Hopewell.	Remand to address dispute-resolution procedure in order.
Whether the visitation/parenting-plan amendment was clearly erroneous.	Horsted claims amendment insufficient despite behavioral concerns.	Horsted’s plan lacked adequate justification; court adopted respondent’s plan.	Amended visitation not clearly erroneous; may be further amended with findings.
Whether the custody investigator fees were properly allocated.	Horsted contends fees should be borne differently given lack of support.	Statute permits allocation against either party; no abuse of discretion.	affirmed; court may allocate fees between parties.

Edwards v. Edwards, 777 N.W.2d 606 (2010 ND) (clear error standard for custody/visitation findings; extensive review limited to districts’ factual basis)
Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (2010 ND) (affirmative limits on reweighing evidence and credibility on appeal)
Sailer v. Sailer, 764 N.W.2d 445 (2009 ND) (remand for missing required findings on best interests)
Kramer v. Kramer, 711 N.W.2d 164 (2006 ND) (court may adopt findings drafted by counsel becomes findings after signature)
Bertsch v. Bertsch, 710 N.W.2d 113 (2006 ND) (best interests govern visitation decisions; restrictions require proof of harm)
Marquette v. Marquette, 719 N.W.2d 321 (2006 ND) (restrictions on visitation must be supported by preponderance of evidence and clear reasoning)