Interest of S.R.L.
2013 ND 32
N.D.2013Background
- Hageman and Sagert married in 2006 and have one child, born in 2008.
- They divorced in Minnesota in 2009 with a stipulated joint custody plan and a Grand Forks area residence preference.
- The divorce judgment contained a relocation-triggered modification clause permitting either party to seek a custody modification if relocation occurred outside the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks area.
- Sagert relocated in September 2010 to St. Thomas, ND, approximately 75 miles from Grand Forks; Hageman remained in Grand Forks and later remarried.
- In 2011 Sagert registered the Minnesota judgment in North Dakota and sought primary residential responsibility; Hageman moved for same, leading to an evidentiary hearing.
- The district court awarded Hageman primary residential responsibility based on best interests under ND Century Code § 14-09-06.2 after applying the statute’s factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modification of primary residential responsibility was proper. | Hageman contends relocation created a material change warranting modification. | Sagert argues no clear evidence shows best interests favor changing residence from Grand Forks area. | Yes; court did not clearly err in awarding Hageman primary residential responsibility. |
| Did the trial court err by relying on the stipulated agreement to determine best interests under factor (m)? | Hageman argues factor (m) properly reflects the agreement that Grand Forks was best, but independent evaluation is required. | Sagert contends the court misapplied the prior stipulation as controlling. | No; court did not clearly err in relying on the prior stipulation as part of its total analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haroldson v. Haroldson, 2012 ND 44 (ND) (modification standards for primary residential responsibility; material change required)
- Zeller v. Zeller, 2002 ND 35 (ND) (pre-divorce stipulations cannot bind future custody modifications; best interests control)
- Wetch v. Wetch, 539 N.W.2d 309 (ND 1995) (stipulated custody cannot preclude modification; court must consider all relevant evidence)
- Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36 (ND) (original determination when joint primary residential responsibility exists and relocation is sought)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221 (ND) (material change and best interests governing modification standard)
- Seay v. Seay, 2012 ND 179 (ND) (best interests and welfare determined by evaluating all factors)