946 N.W.2d 494
N.D.2020Background
- Parents: Aimee Norby (mother) and Robert Hinesley (father) share a child born in 2012; Norby was awarded primary residential responsibility in 2014 and Hinesley parenting time.
- In 2019 Norby married Lyle Anderson, who owns a home in Smithville, Missouri (near Kansas City) and works as a diesel mechanic in Williston, ND on two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off shifts.
- Norby sought court permission to relocate the child from Williston, ND to Smithville, MO; Hinesley opposed and sought modification of custody/parenting time.
- Norby argued the move would improve quality of life (better housing, smaller class sizes, lower cost of living) and that she would live with Anderson; she had not secured employment in Smithville.
- District court found the move would not benefit the child, would decrease the child’s time with both parents (Anderson would still work in Williston), undermine continuity/stability, and noted past instances where Norby frustrated Hinesley’s parenting time.
- Norby appealed the denial of relocation; the Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the district court’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to Missouri is in the child’s best interests (Stout–Hawkinson factor 1: prospective advantages) | Move offers better housing, lower cost of living, smaller class sizes, improved quality of life for mother and child | No evidence of superior employment or clear economic/noneconomic advantage; moving would disrupt continuity and access to maternal family | Court: Findings that factor 1 did not favor relocation supported by record; not clearly erroneous; factor 1 did not favor move |
| Whether mother’s motive was to deter father’s visitation (factor 2: integrity of custodial parent’s motive) | Move not motivated to limit Hinesley’s access; motive legitimate (marriage, quality of life) | Proposed parenting plan would drastically reduce father’s time and was conditioned on mother’s schedule/finances; mother previously frustrated visitation | Court: Evidence and permissible inferences support district court’s finding that motive raised concerns; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether relocation would harm father–child relationship or preclude realistic visitation (factor 4) | Mother would comply with court-ordered visitation; distance does not alone defeat relocation | Distance plus proposed schedule would substantially impair father’s ability to preserve relationship; prior interference history raises compliance concerns | Court: District court reasonably found relocation would substantially negative impact relationship and that proposed plan would not adequately preserve visitation; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review | N/A | N/A | Court applied clearly erroneous standard to district court’s factual findings and affirmed denial of relocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. Stout, 560 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1997) (articulates relocation factors later applied/modified)
- Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 591 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1999) (modifies Stout factors for relocation analysis)
- Larson v. Larson, 878 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 2016) (relocation motion reviewed as factual finding under clearly erroneous standard)
- Green v. Swiers, 920 N.W.2d 471 (N.D. 2018) (reiterates deference to district court on relocation findings)
- Booen v. Appel, 899 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2017) (discusses balancing advantages and importance of continuity; virtual visitation)
- Graner v. Graner, 738 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2007) (factors and evidence relevant to factor 1)
- Porter v. Porter, 714 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 2006) (distance and refashioned visitation considerations)
- Hruby v. Hruby, 776 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (custodial parent moving to live with new spouse can favor relocation but not dispositive)