Keita v. Keita, 823 N.W.2d 726

Mohamed Keita and Jennifer Keita married in 2006, have one child born in 2008, and separated in 2010.
Jennifer obtained sole decision-making authority and primary residential responsibility for the child in temporary orders; Mohamed had supervised parenting time via webcam/telephone.
After trial, the district court awarded Jennifer primary decision-making and residential responsibility, awarded Mohamed supervised parenting time, ordered child support to Jennifer, and awarded Jennifer attorney fees with a reserve of jurisdiction for spousal support.
The court found evidence of Mohamed’s angry behaviors, harassment, and past restraint order, and considered safety concerns for the child and Jennifer.
The court treated Mohamed’s potential travel/flight risk and citizenship status as factors in restricting parenting time, and denied a downward deviation for Mohamed’s travel expenses while approving an upward daycare expense deviation.
On appeal, the district court’s rulings were challenged regarding parenting time, child support, attorney fees, property distribution, and the spousal support reservation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervised parenting time was proper based on status and flight risk	Keita contends bias and uncertainty about citizenship and risk justify supervision.	Keita argues evidence supports endangering health or flight risk justifies supervision.	Supervised time unsupported; remand for detailed findings
Whether child support should downwardly deviate for travel to exercise parenting time	Keita asserts travel expenses reduce ability to pay and warrant a downward deviation.	Keita failed to show substantial travel history or actual expenses; deviation denied.	Travel-deviation not properly considered; remand for findings
Whether daycare costs justify upward deviation in child support	Keita argues daycare costs should be offset by deviation.	Court granted upward deviation for daycare costs as in best interests.	Upward deviation upheld
Whether attorney fees and cash property distribution were supported	Keita claims insufficient findings and misapplication of Ruff-Fischer factors.	Jennifer’s fees and property distribution supported by record and tax exemptions.	Findings adequate; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court correctly reserved spousal support for future action	Reservation was improper since not requested and should not hinge on nonpayment of awards.	Reservation permissible to address potential future need post-judgment.	Reservation of spousal support reversed

Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (N.D. 2010) (parenting time in best interests; detailed harm needed for restriction)
Bertsch v. Bertsch, 2006 ND 31 (N.D. 2006) (best interests factors for parenting time)
Marquette v. Marquette, 2006 ND 154 (N.D. 2006) (restriction on parenting time must be supported by evidence of harm)
Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35 (N.D. 2009) (deviation from guideline amount requires rebuttal by presumption and findings)
Crandall v. Crandall, 2011 ND 136 (N.D. 2011) ( Ruff-Fischer factors required for equitable distribution; rationale required)
Stephenson v. Stephenson, 2011 ND 57 (N.D. 2011) (court must explain rationale for division even if not itemizing every Ruff-Fischer factor)
Reiser v. Reiser, 2001 ND 6 (N.D. 2001) (attorney fees award governed by need and ability to pay; fault can affect fees)
Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41 (N.D. 2001) (courts may reserve jurisdiction for spousal support when appropriate, but not to modify property division)