Lund v. Lund
2011 ND 53
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Bradley Prchal and Sara Gerdon Prchal (now Gerdon) married in 1995 and divorced in 2002 under a stipulated agreement; Gerdon was awarded primary residential responsibility with Prchal receiving parenting time.
- Three children were born in 1992, 1997, and 1999; the 2002 judgment and 2003 amendments governed parenting time schedules.
- The parties repeatedly disputed the parenting time plan, leading to multiple motions to amend in 2003 and 2005 and a 2006 contempt for medical bills.
- In September 2009 Prchal sought contempt against Gerdon; she sought modification of the schedule, appointment of a parenting coordinator, and court-ordered co-parenting counseling.
- After a December 2009 hearing, the district court denied contempt and granted Gerdon’s motion to modify Prchal’s parenting time; the court also ordered a parenting coordinator and co-parenting counseling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying contempt | Prchal contends Gerdon intentionally denied him summer parenting time | Gerdon asserts no intentional interference and cites ongoing scheduling disputes | No abuse of discretion; contempt denied |
| Whether the court properly modified the parenting time schedule | Modification was improper absent a material change and best interests | Modifications were warranted to reduce conflict and accommodate children's needs | Modification affirmed; material change and best interests supported |
| Whether a party with primary residential responsibility may seek modifications under N.D.C.C. 14-05-22(2) | Gerdon could not seek modification under 14-05-22(2) | The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time under 14-05-22(1) and 14-09; 14-05-22(2) protects the other parent’s time | Statute permits modification by the non-primary parent and does not limit the court's continuing jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court properly appointed a parenting coordinator and ordered counseling | Appointment and counseling were unsupported | Appointment and counseling were within the court’s discretion to address persistent conflict | No error; court acted within discretion to appoint coordinator and order counseling |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Berg, 2000 ND 37 (ND 2000) (contempt standard requires clear proof and willful violation)
- Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 1999 ND 146 (ND 1999) (contempt and modification standards in family disputes)
- Harger v. Harger, 2002 ND 76 (ND 2002) (willful disobedience required for contempt; defenses like inability to comply)
- Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31 (ND 2010) (material change in circumstances and best interests standard for parenting-time modification)
- Helfenstein v. Schutt, 2007 ND 106 (ND 2007) (initial custody decisions; visitation modifications governed by caselaw; continuing jurisdiction stays intact)
- Zeller v. Zeller, 2002 ND 35 (ND 2002) (continuing jurisdiction to modify custody/parenting rights regardless of contract)