911 N.W.2d 919
N.D.2018Background
- Mark Rath and Kayla Rath (now Jones) were divorced in 2013; Kayla awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark supervised parenting time.
- Mark made numerous post-judgment motions over several years seeking shared/joint parenting or expanded unsupervised parenting time; multiple prior appeals and orders exist in this file.
- In April 2017 the district court held a hearing on Mark’s motion to amend the judgment; in June 2017 the court entered a second amended judgment granting Kayla sole decisionmaking responsibility and awarding Mark unsupervised parenting time with restrictions.
- After the hearing, additional Family Safety Center (FSC) records were filed; the court declined further hearing on them and later addressed those filings in denying reconsideration/new trial motions.
- Mark appealed, arguing (1) manifest injustice/new trial was required because of handling of newly filed FSC records and other procedural issues, (2) the judge should be recused, and (3) the court’s factual findings and limitations on parenting time were clearly erroneous.
- The Supreme Court limited-remanded pending post-judgment motions, then affirmed the second amended judgment and all orders denying new trial, recusal, and reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Rath's Argument | Jones's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest injustice required a new trial | Court admitted/considered FSC records after hearing and effectively continued trial without proper notice, prejudicing Rath | Court exercised discretion over evidence and did not deny fair hearing; FSC records did not change outcome | No new trial; no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether judge must recuse | Prior adverse rulings, alleged ex parte contacts, and prior knowledge of the file demonstrate bias | Adverse rulings alone do not show bias; judge properly considered related court history and followed law | Denial of recusal affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether decisionmaking responsibility could be modified without separate motion | Court improperly removed joint decisionmaking absent a specific motion on that issue | Motion to amend parenting plan encompassed parenting authority; court may modify decisionmaking when reopening parenting plan | Modification upheld; no due process violation |
| Whether parenting-time decision and restrictions were clearly erroneous | Restrictions and findings (fear, harassment, reliance on prior orders) lacked evidentiary support | Court’s findings were supported by record history, testimony, and prior orders; judge’s factual findings reviewed for clear error | Parenting-time modification and limits affirmed; not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Hankey v. Hankey, 861 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 2015) (defines “material change in circumstances” for custody modification)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 758 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2008) (modification of custody reviewed for clear error)
- Seibold v. Leverington, 837 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 2013) (standard for modifying parenting time requires material change and best interests)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 803 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 2011) (bench-findings and judicial notice of related orders; best-interests findings must be supported)
- Tuhy v. Tuhy, 907 N.W.2d 351 (N.D. 2018) (motions to reconsider treated under Rules 59/60; appellate scope limited to issues raised)
- Schweitzer v. Mattingley, 887 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2016) (recusal standard: judge presumed unbiased; recusal if reasonable person would question impartiality)