Rath v. Rath, 2017 ND 128

Mark and Kayla Rath divorced in 2013; Kayla awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark supervised parenting time.
Numerous prior appeals between the parties; this appeal challenges several district-court orders from May–June 2016 denying recusal, an order to show cause (contempt), reconsideration, and three "Assignment of Judge" orders denying change-of-judge demands.
After briefing, the district judge ultimately recused himself on September 19, 2016; Mark Rath expressly waived the recusal issues at oral argument to this Court.
The district court found no clear, satisfactory proof of willful contempt by Kayla for events including a missed scheduled telephone call, therapy-related disputes, medical/educational decisions, and school enrollment after a move to Mandan.
The court criticized Rath’s repeated, meritless contempt filings as harassing and disruptive; it also noted Kayla’s limited obligation to respond under an earlier order, a point raised in a concurring opinion.

Issue	Rath's Argument	Kayla's/Respondent's Position	Held
Recusal of district judge	Judge was biased and impartial; recusal required	District court denied recusal; later judge recused; issues waived on appeal	Recusal issues waived by Rath at oral argument; not addressed on merits
Demands for change of judge (Assignment of Judge orders)	Denial misapplied N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21; required change	Denials were interlocutory because child-support modification was pending	Orders denying change of judge are interlocutory and not appealable; not addressed here
Contempt / order to show cause (missed phone call, therapy, school enrollment, medical event)	Alleged pattern of violations of divorce judgment; court should hold Kayla in contempt	Court found offers to reschedule, lack of willful/inexcusable breach, and insufficient proof	District court did not abuse discretion; contempt not warranted for asserted technical violations
Motion for reconsideration of contempt/recusal denials	Court misapplied law; should reconsider and find contempt	Court previously explained factual and legal bases for denial	Denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion; affirmed

Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 105, 879 N.W.2d 735 (recusal/parenting-plan jurisprudence and prior appeals in this family dispute)
Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 83, 878 N.W.2d 85 (family-law procedural context)
Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 46, 876 N.W.2d 474 (family-law precedent relied on by court)
Rath v. Rath, 2015 ND 22, 861 N.W.2d 172 (prior discussions of contempt and enforcement of custody/parenting orders)
Rath v. Rath, 2014 ND 171, 852 N.W.2d 377 (technical violations vs. contempt; policy discouraging contempt for minor breaches)
Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, 840 N.W.2d 656 (similar principle that technical violations do not necessarily warrant contempt)
Sall v. Sall, 2011 ND 202, 804 N.W.2d 378 (standard for contempt: clear and satisfactory proof of willful disobedience)
Millang v. Hahn, 1998 ND 152, 582 N.W.2d 665 (district court's broad discretion in contempt matters)
Larson v. Larson, 2002 ND 196, 653 N.W.2d 869 (standard for reviewing denial of reconsideration)
Falcon v. State, 1997 ND 200, 570 N.W.2d 719 (orders denying change of judge are interlocutory and not appealable)
Traynor v. Leclerc, 1997 ND 47, 561 N.W.2d 644 (same: change-of-judge denials are not immediately appealable)
In re Estate of Ketterling, 515 N.W.2d 158 (ND 1994) (interlocutory nature of assignment-of-judge denials)