Mairs v. Mairs
2014 ND 132
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Mairs and Aker were divorced in May 2011 with a stipulation providing joint residential responsibility for two children.
- In January 2012, Aker moved from North Dakota to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, but the divorce judgment was not amended at that time.
- The parties settled into a practice where Aker had weekend parenting time during the school year and extended breaks and summers.
- November 2012: Mairs moved to modify to primary residential responsibility; Aker also sought primary residential responsibility.
- December 2012: the court found a prima facie case for modification and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
- September 2013: after further proceedings, the district court awarded Aker primary residential responsibility and Mairs parenting time, and issued amended findings and judgment. Mairs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a proper modification of residential responsibility warranted? | Mairs asserted improper procedural basis for award to Aker. | Aker argued relocation and best interests favored primary residence with her. | Yes; court affirmed modification awarding Aker primary residential responsibility. |
| Did time limits at the evidentiary hearing violate due process? | Time limits prevented full cross-examination and presentation of evidence. | Court has broad discretion to limit hearing time; no showing of prejudice. | No; court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Was there a failure to relocate the children under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 due to lack of a relocation motion? | Relocation analysis should have been performed with proper §14-09-07 motion. | Relocation analysis was considered; failure to raise issue in district court precludes review. | Preclusion; issue not preserved for review. |
| Were the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) properly weighed and supported by findings? | Court misweighed factors to favor Aker. | Court properly weighed factors and provided sufficient, specific findings. | Yes; findings supported and not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36 (ND (2006)) (original determination of primary residential responsibility when relocation is involved)
- Wetch v. Wetch, 539 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1995) (consider all relevant evidence in a custody decision based on stipulation)
- Kartes v. Kartes, 831 N.W.2d 731 (ND 2013) (mootness of evidentiary basis for prima facie case after hearing)
- Regan v. Lervold, 844 N.W.2d 576 (ND 2014) (framework for post-judgment modification of primary residential responsibility)
- Morris v. Moller, 815 N.W.2d 266 (ND 2012) (best-interests standard for primary residential responsibility)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (ND 2010) (clearly erroneous standard and deference to district court in custody decisions)
- Schlieve v. Schlieve, 2014 ND 107 (ND 2014) (clarifies standard for findings of fact in custody rulings)