Lerfald v. Lerfald, 2021 ND 150

Parties divorced in 2015 and have one minor child; 2015 divorce judgment gave Kelsey Bosch primary residential responsibility.
In Feb 2020 Bosch moved to modify parenting time; Lerfald did not appear, and the court's March 3, 2020 amended judgment required Tyson Lerfald to maintain a valid driver’s license and be solely responsible for transportation for his parenting time.
Lerfald’s driver’s license had been suspended before the amended judgment was entered.
In Nov 2020 Lerfald moved to modify the amended judgment to remove the license/transportation requirement, reinstate his license, enforce parenting time, and modify child support.
The district court denied Lerfald’s motion, finding no material change in circumstances, noting negative developments (including a DUI arrest while the child was in the vehicle), and that best-interest factors favored Bosch.
Lerfald appealed, arguing the license/transportation condition improperly limited parenting time and that the court relied on inadmissible hearsay; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bosch)	Defendant's Argument (Lerfald)	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying Lerfald’s motion to remove the requirement that he maintain a valid driver’s license and be solely responsible for transportation for parenting time	The amended judgment was proper; Lerfald failed to show a material change and safety/best-interest concerns support the requirement	The license/transportation requirement unreasonably restricts exercise of parenting time and should not make parenting time contingent on having a license	Affirmed: Lerfald failed to show a material change since the amended judgment (his license suspension predated the order); court did not err in denying modification and findings are not clearly erroneous
Whether the district court relied on inadmissible hearsay (Bosch’s affidavits/exhibits)	Any affidavits/exhibits were effectively tested at the hearing; Lerfald cross-examined Bosch and invited consideration of the statements	The court relied on unauthenticated affidavits/exhibits not offered into evidence, so findings were based on inadmissible hearsay	Affirmed: any evidentiary error was not reversible—Lerfald invited the evidence, and competent evidence supports the court’s findings

Rustad v. Baumgartner, 2020 ND 126, 943 N.W.2d 786 (standard of review for parenting-time findings and requirement to show material change and best interests for modification)
Valeu v. Strube, 2018 ND 30, 905 N.W.2d 728 (court need not consider best-interest factors if movant fails to show material change)
In re T.H., 2012 ND 38, 812 N.W.2d 373 (prohibition on collateral attack of an unappealed final decision)
Krueger v. Krueger, 2013 ND 245, 840 N.W.2d 613 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidence rulings; inadmissible evidence in non-jury cases rarely reversible)
In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, 763 N.W.2d 783 (inadmissible evidence only reversible if it induced an essential finding)
Schurmann v. Schurmann, 2016 ND 69, 877 N.W.2d 20 (movant bears burden to prove material change to modify parenting-time provisions)
State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206, 932 N.W.2d 106 (a party generally cannot complain on appeal about an error it invited)