Interest of B.K.
2012 ND 200
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Married in 1990; three children: D.M. (1992 emancipated), R.M. (1995), C.M. (2001).
- Michael is a physician; Sandra stayed at home, managing clinic operations; assets accumulated during marriage.
- Separated December 2007; nine-day trial in February 2010; divorce granted with joint primary for two sons and Sandra primary for daughter.
- Court found Sandra alienated the older two children from Michael; ordered $6,127 monthly child support and specific asset awards.
- Post-trial motions largely denied; issues include residential responsibility, support, and property distribution.
- This appeal challenges those rulings; daughter emancipated, affecting final custody posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint primary residential responsibility for RM and CM appropriate? | Martiré argues sole custody should be his due to alienation by Sandra. | Hendricksen Martiré contends joint custody unfair given alienation and dynamics. | Not clearly erroneous; joint primary residential responsibility affirmed. |
| Upward deviation from guidelines for child support justified? | Martiré contends deviation not supported by findings; guideline amount should apply. | Hendricksen Martiré argues deviation warranted by income and needs. | District court findings support upward deviation; not clearly erroneous. |
| Spousal support award reasonable? | Martiré argues payor earning capacity overstated; support should be lower. | Hendricksen Martiré argues shortfall in support given age, health, work history. | Spousal support of $5,000/month not clearly erroneous under Ruff-Fischer factors. |
| Marital property distribution upheld? | Martiré claims debt offsets/Awarded assets misvalued; inequitable. | Hendricksen Martiré challenges valuation and distribution as unequal. | Valuations and distribution not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion on expert testimony. |
| Post-trial motions disposition proper? | Martiré asserts district court abused discretion denying relief. | Hendricksen Martiré supports district court rulings. | No abuse of discretion; post-trial rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995) (parental alienation may preclude custody based on alienation)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2010) (alienation significant factor; may limit custody)
- Brown v. Brown, 600 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1999) (alienation as a factor in custody decisions)
- Loll v. Loll, 561 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1997) (alienation is a critical custody consideration)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 695 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 2005) (shared decision-making requires cooperation)
- Jarvis v. Jarvis, 584 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1998) (co-parenting and best-interests framework)