Niska v. Falconer
2012 ND 245
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Jennifer Keita and Mohamed Keita married in 2006; they have one child born in 2008.
- They separated in June 2010 and Jennifer filed for divorce in September 2010.
- The district court granted Jennifer sole decision-making and primary residential responsibility, and Mohamed supervised parenting time, with temporary restraining provisions.
- Trial court later ordered property division, cash to Jennifer, Jennifer’s legal fees, and no downward deviation for Mohamed’s travel; spousal support reserving jurisdiction.
- Mohamed appealed, challenging supervised parenting time, child support, and the reservation of spousal support; the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion by awarding supervised parenting time? | Keita contends the child’s best interests support unsupervised time. | Keita argues parenting time should be supervised due to risk factors and status concerns. | No, the district court’s specific findings were insufficient to support supervision. |
| Was the child support deviation for travel properly analyzed? | Keita asserts guidelines were not properly applied to travel expenses. | Keita contends travel costs should reduce support. | The court erred by not adequately considering travel expenses; remanded for proper findings. |
| Were attorney fees and the cash property distribution properly justified? | Keita argues insufficient findings or misapplication of Ruff-Fischer factors. | Keita disputes the attorney-fee award and distribution. | Findings sufficient to support fees and distribution; no clear error. |
| Was reserving spousal support proper where not requested? | Keita argues no basis to reserve spousal support. | Keita contends contingency tied to nonpayment justified reserve. | The reservation was improper; remand to address spousal support independently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (2010 ND 26) (best-interests standard for parenting time; detailed analysis required for restrictions)
- Bertsch v. Bertsch, 710 N.W.2d 113 (2006 ND 31) (framework for evaluating parenting-time restrictions)
- Marquette v. Marquette, 719 N.W.2d 321 (2006 ND 154) (restrictions require showing of potential harm to child)