876 N.W.2d 474
N.D.2016Background
- Mark and Kayla Rath divorced in January 2013; Kayla awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark ordered to have supervised parenting time at the Family Safety Center pending completion of domestic-violence treatment and a psychological evaluation.
- Since the divorce, Mark filed numerous post-judgment motions challenging parenting time, supervision, and related orders; several prior appeals are on the record.
- Between Sept.–Dec. 2014 Mark filed motions seeking contempt findings against Kayla, an ex parte interim order to modify the judgment, and a challenge to jurisdiction; a hearing was held March 9, 2015.
- The district court denied his contempt motions, denied his interim request to modify parenting time (finding no admissible proof he completed court-ordered requirements and no showing of best interests), refused some of his requested testimony at the hearing, awarded Kayla $750 in attorney fees as sanction, and denied recusal.
- Mark appealed multiple orders; the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mark) | Defendant's Argument (Kayla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kayla should be held in contempt for interfering with supervised phone calls and visitation | Kayla unilaterally forced supervised calls, altered visitation, and willfully violated the judgment | No credible evidence of intentional disobedience; actions did not willfully violate the decree | Court affirmed: Mark failed to prove willful contempt; denial of contempt not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether district court erred in denying interim modification of parenting time | He completed required treatment/evaluation and thus is entitled to unsupervised/expanded parenting time without showing a material change | No admissible proof he completed court-ordered requirements; even if completed, modification must be in children’s best interests | Court affirmed: Mark offered insufficient evidence of completion and no showing of best interests; denial proper |
| Whether speaker-phone telephone visits violate wiretapping/eavesdropping laws | Requiring speaker-phone unlawfully records or intercepts calls | Judgment does not prohibit speaker-phone; requirement reasonable given history of abuse | Court affirmed: federal authorities cited by Mark irrelevant; no merit to wiretapping claim |
| Whether court abused discretion in hearing management, witness exclusion, attorney-fee award, or refusal to recuse | He was denied full hearing, could not call Kayla, judge was biased, and fee award lacked proof | Court managed time within discretion; motions were repetitive/frivolous; fee award authorized to curb abuse; adverse rulings do not require recusal | Court affirmed: hearing control and witness limits appropriate, fee award reasonable sanction, and recusal not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 2000) (burden to prove contempt must be clear and satisfactory)
- Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 2002) (contempt requires willful and inexcusable intent to disobey court order)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (standard for modifying parenting time: material change and best interests)
- Dufner v. Trottier, 778 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2010) (material change occurs when important new facts arise after the prior order)
- Strand v. Cass County, 753 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 2008) (district court may award attorney fees to curb frivolous or bad-faith filings)