Law v. Whittet
844 N.W.2d 885
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Nicholas Law sought primary residential responsibility for the child; Whittet moved to Scranton a week before trial and trial occurred with joint custody interim order in place.
- Trial included evidence of a September 2012 incident where Whittet assaulted her mother in the presence of the child; Whittet pled guilty to disorderly conduct and escape.
- District court awarded joint residential responsibility, finding most best-interest factors equal or inapplicable, except factor (c) favoring Whittet for developmental needs.
- Law moved to supplement the record post-trial with new evidence showing Whittet’s arrests and intoxication; motion to amend was denied; judgment entered for joint responsibility.
- On appeal, the court reversed, holding several findings of fact were clearly erroneous and that Law should have primary residential responsibility; court directed remand for primary-residence determination, parenting time, and recalculation of child support; emphasized domestic violence evidence as dominating the factors.
- Concurrence noted a remand for fact-finding is appropriate when law is misapplied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-interest factors (b), (d), (j) properly weighed? | Law contends factors (b), (d), (j) favored Law. | Whittet contends factors were equal or favor Whittet. | Factors (b), (d), (j) favored Law; district court erred. |
| Was joint residential responsibility appropriate given the record? | Law argues primary residence to Law is warranted by the record. | Whittet argues joint custody maintains status quo. | Remanded to award Law primary residential responsibility and adjust parenting plan. |
| Did the district court properly consider domestic violence evidence under factor (j)? | Domestic-violence evidence (Whittet’s assault of mother) should be considered and favor Law. | Whittet argues no domestic-violence finding was warranted. | District court erred by ignoring domestic-violence evidence; factor (j) favored Law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Datz v. Dosch, 836 N.W.2d 598 (2013 ND) (domestic-violence evidence must be factually analyzed and may dominate factors)
- Niemann v. Niemann, 746 N.W.2d 3 (2008 ND) (domestic-violence considerations in best-interests framework)
- Anderson v. Hensrud, 548 N.W.2d 410 (1996 ND) (domestic-violence considerations and family dynamics)
- Heck v. Reed, 529 N.W.2d 155 (1995 ND) (context for best-interests evaluation)
- Helbling v. Helbling, 532 N.W.2d 650 (1995 ND) (domestic violence and best-interests framework)
- Wessman v. Wessman, 747 N.W.2d 85 (2008 ND) (domestic-violence evidence and best-interests considerations)
- Vandal v. Leno, 2014 ND 45 (2014 ND) (clarifies interpretation of best-interest factors and sufficiency of findings)
- Rustad v. Rustad, 838 N.W.2d 421 (2013 ND) (standard for clearly erroneous findings; needs detail in factual findings)