Rath v. Rath, 909 N.W.2d 666

Mark Rath and Kayla Rath (now Kayla Jones) divorced in 2013; Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark had supervised parenting time.
Over several years Mark filed numerous post-judgment motions seeking shared parenting or unsupervised time; the court later granted limited unsupervised parenting time in a 2017 amended judgment.
In August 2017 Mark moved to amend the parenting plan to allow a 10-day overnight out-of-state family vacation in summer 2018; Kayla opposed citing safety concerns.
The district court held a hearing, denied the requested modification in an October 27, 2017 order, and found the motion frivolous, awarding Kayla attorney fees.
Mark sought reconsideration and recusal; the court declined to consider recusal and denied reconsideration. He appealed the denial of the modification and sought a supervisory writ to force recusal.
The Supreme Court affirmed denial of the parenting-time modification, reversed the attorney-fee award (finding the motion was not frivolous), and denied the request for a supervisory writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rath)	Defendant's Argument (Kayla)	Held
Whether district court erred in denying modification of parenting time for a 10-day out-of-state vacation	Motion sought temporary amendment; reasonable to request court-ordered overnight vacation given poor interparental communication	Modification would endanger children or was premature given limited unsupervised time; safety concerns	Affirmed — court's findings that limited unsupervised history and timing made modification inappropriate were not clearly erroneous
Whether motion was frivolous warranting mandatory attorney-fee award under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2)	Motion had factual and legal support; not a complete absence of law or facts	Motion was part of a pattern of harassing filings and thus frivolous	Reversed — court abused discretion; motion was not frivolous as reasonable arguments existed
Whether trial judge should be recused for bias / whether supervisory writ should issue	Judge was biased and prejudicial against Rath, requiring recusal and writ	No record evidence of bias; recusal unnecessary	Denied — no extraordinary circumstances or record showing bias; appeal is adequate remedy
Whether Supreme Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to order recusal	Immediate writ necessary to prevent injustice	Writ not warranted; appeal is proper remedy	Denied — supervisory writ is discretionary and not warranted here

Votava v. Votava, 2015 ND 171, 865 N.W.2d 821 (discusses continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time)
Prchal v. Prchal, 2011 ND 62, 795 N.W.2d 693 (standards for material change and best interests for parenting-time modification)
Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221, 758 N.W.2d 691 (definition of material change in circumstances)
Harvey v. Harvey, 2016 ND 251, 888 N.W.2d 543 (standards and review for parenting-time modification findings)
Curtiss v. Curtiss, 2016 ND 197, 886 N.W.2d 565 (requirement that district court adequately explain evidentiary and legal basis)
Estate of Pedro, 2014 ND 237, 856 N.W.2d 775 (authority on frivolous-claim sanctions and required showing)
Strand v. Cass Cnty., 2008 ND 149, 753 N.W.2d 872 (district court must award fees when claim is frivolous under § 28-26-01(2))
Estate of Dion, 2001 ND 53, 623 N.W.2d 720 (definition of frivolous claim standard)
Federal Land Bank v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (court's inherent power to control docket and deter abuses)