Rustad v. Rustad
2014 ND 148
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Rick and Svetlana Rustad divorced after a marriage beginning in 2008; they have one child born in 2011.
- District Court initially awarded Svetlana primary residential responsibility, rehabilitative spousal support, and divided marital property; Rick appealed the custody portion.
- This Court in Rustad v. Rustad (2013) affirmed property and support but reversed and remanded custody for more specific findings on the statutory "best interest" factors.
- On remand the district court made findings under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 and again awarded Svetlana primary residential responsibility.
- Findings emphasized Svetlana as primary caregiver (with maternal-grandmother assistance), her greater day-to-day involvement, parental communication problems, and that the best interest factors overall favored Svetlana.
- The district court set a substantial mid-week parenting schedule for Rick; Svetlana cross-appealed only the parenting-time terms and sought reconsideration of property/support (which this Court declined to revisit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rick) | Defendant's Argument (Svetlana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of primary residential responsibility to Svetlana was clearly erroneous | Court misapplied law, ignored or misstated facts, failed to address alienation, primary-caretaker status should not dictate award | District court properly considered all best-interest factors and Svetlana’s primary-caregiver role supports award | Affirmed: findings supported by evidence; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court improperly relied on "tender years" or gender stereotypes | Court applied tender-years/gendered reasoning | No gender-based presumption; decision based on caregiving and other factors | Rejected Rick’s claim; one non-neutral remark noted but not outcome-determinative |
| Whether parental alienation evidence required a different result | Alienation allegations were credible and should preclude award to Svetlana | Court considered communication/alienation evidence and found it not dispositive | Affirmed: court’s findings permit inference alienation was not significant enough to change outcome |
| Parenting-time schedule (cross-appeal by Svetlana) | (n/a) | Request to limit Rick to one overnight/week and deny when child is sick | Affirmed: parenting time presumed in child’s interest; schedule is nearly optimal and not clearly erroneous |
| Reconsideration of property division and spousal support (cross-appeal) | (n/a) | Requests reconsideration | Denied: those issues were resolved in prior appeal and are not open on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Rustad v. Rustad, 838 N.W.2d 421 (N.D. 2013) (prior appeal reversing custody for insufficient best-interest findings)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 777 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 2010) (standard of review and deference in custody determinations between fit parents)
- Lindberg v. Lindberg, 770 N.W.2d 252 (N.D. 2009) (do not reweigh evidence on appeal)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 830 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 2013) (alienation relevant under factor (e))
- Doll v. Doll, 794 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 2011) (not all alienation indicators mandate denying custody)
- Conzemius v. Conzemius, 841 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 2014) (parenting-time standard; visitation presumed in child’s best interest)
- McDowell v. McDowell, 670 N.W.2d 876 (N.D. 2003) (discussion of tender-years doctrine and gender presumptions)
- Klein v. Larson, 724 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2006) (no presumption for mother in custody/visitation)
- Kasprowicz v. Kasprowicz, 575 N.W.2d 921 (N.D. 1998) (similar rejection of tender-years presumption)
- Weber v. Weber, 512 N.W.2d 723 (N.D. 1994) (warning against sex-based stereotypes in custody decisions)