Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693

Background

Prchal and Gerdon were married in 1995 and divorced in 2002; Gerdon was awarded primary residential responsibility and Prchal received parenting time; the 2003 amended judgment addressed scheduling of parenting time.
Since 2002 the parties have repeatedly litigated parenting-time issues, including 2003 and 2005 motions and a 2006 contempt citation for medical bills.
In 2009 Prchal moved to find Gerdon in contempt and Gerdon moved to modify the parenting-time schedule, appoint a parenting coordinator, and require co-parenting counseling.
After a December 2009 hearing, the district court denied Prchal’s contempt motion and granted Gerdon’s request to modify parenting time.
The court also ordered counseling and appointed a parenting coordinator due to ongoing conflict, and the amended judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying contempt	Prchal argues Gerdon intentionally denied him summer visitation.	Gerdon denies intentional interference and cites ongoing scheduling disputes and mutual misinterpretation of the plan.	No abuse of discretion; Gerdon did not willfully frustrate Prchal’s parenting time.
Whether the court had authority to modify parenting time	Prchal contends 14-05-22(2) limits modification to the non-custodial parent and the primary parent cannot seek modification.	Gerdon argues the court has continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time under 14-05-22(1) and that 14-05-22(2) protects the non-primary-parent’s access.	Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time; 14-05-22(2) does not bar primary-responsibility parents from seeking modification under 14-05-22(1).
Whether there was a material change in circumstances and the modification served the children's best interests	Older children provide more opportunities and Prchal’s schedule should remain fixed due to the contract.	Circumstances changed (child activity, conflicts, alienation concerns) and modification serves best interests.	Yes, there was a material change and modification was in the children's best interests; the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Whether the parenting coordinator and counseling order were proper	Appointment of a coordinator and counseling was improper or unnecessary.	Coordination and counseling were reasonable to reduce conflict and protect children’s interests.	Court acted within discretion to appoint a parenting coordinator and order counseling.

Key Cases Cited

Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (ND 2000) (contempt standard requires clear and satisfactory proof of violation)
Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (ND 1999) (contempt requires willful disobedience; defenses of inability to comply)
Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (ND 2002) (contempt requires willful, inexcusable intent to violate order)
Dufner v. Trottier, 778 N.W.2d 586 (ND 2010) (modification of parenting time requires material change and best interests)
Helfenstein v. Schutt, 640 N.W.2d 53 (ND 2002) (post-judgment visitation modifications governed by specific standards)
Ibach v. Zacher, 724 N.W.2d 165 (ND 2006) (material change in circumstances sufficient for modification)
Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695 (ND 1995) (best interests and scheduling impact on child)
Ackerman v. Ackerman, 596 N.W.2d 332 (ND 1999) (continuing jurisdiction over parenting time; visitation is a reasonable right)
Zeller v. Zeller, 640 N.W.2d 53 (ND 2002) (custody/parenting time decisions under chapter 14-05-22)
Malaterre v. Malaterre, 293 N.W.2d 139 (ND 1980) (continuing custody jurisdiction despite contract)