Schaffner v. Schaffner
2017 ND 170
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Paul Schaffner and Teresa Schaffner share one child (born 2002); after their 2012 divorce, Teresa received primary residential responsibility and a domestic violence protection order against Paul.
- An interlocutory order limited Paul to supervised visitation and appointed a parenting coordinator to facilitate reunification.
- Prior modification attempts: 2013 petition denied after Paul intimidated two parenting coordinators; 2014 petition denied despite completion of domestic violence treatment (no appeal of that order).
- In 2016 Paul filed a third petition seeking unsupervised parenting time, asserting his new employment as a teacher constituted a material change in circumstances; the district court denied the petition on January 4, 2017.
- Paul moved for additional findings and a new trial; that motion was denied on January 24, 2017. He appealed, focusing on whether his employment change was a material change warranting unsupervised visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paul’s new employment is a material change in circumstances that justifies modifying supervised visitation to unsupervised | New employment as a teacher gives Paul increased stability and time with the child, constituting a material change | Employment, while positive, does not address the underlying safety concerns (intimidating behavior, outstanding protection order, lack of evidence of ongoing counseling) | Court affirmed: employment is not a material change relevant to supervised visitation; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the appeal is properly before the Supreme Court given notice ambiguities | Paul argued the January 4 order was final and appealable | Teresa argued the notice referenced a nonappealable Rule 52(b) order and was defective | Court held the January 4 order was intended as final and the appeal is properly before the Court |
| Whether prior orders (2013, 2014/2015) can be relitigated now | Paul asked the Court to reconsider prior findings | Teresa argued those orders are final and time to appeal expired | Court held those issues are waived due to lapse of appeal time |
| Whether district court clearly erred in factual findings about risk to child | Paul contended the court misweighed evidence and credibility | Teresa maintained court properly weighed evidence and credibility, finding no admissible proof of counseling or changed risk factors | Court deferred to trial court credibility findings and found no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellendale Farmers Union Co-op v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1974) (discussing appealability of orders)
- Austin v. Towne, 560 N.W.2d 895 (N.D. 1997) (when an order is treated as a final judgment)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson, 859 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 2015) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
- O’Hara v. Schneider, 890 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 2017) (standard for modifying parenting time requires material change and best interests)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 809 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 2012) (definition of material change in custody context)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 830 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 2013) (deference to district court on credibility and weighing of evidence)