Schlieve v. Schlieve
846 N.W.2d 733
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Terrance Schlieve filed for divorce; Julie Schlieve sought primary residential responsibility for their three children.
- Interim order awarded joint residential responsibility with alternating weekly custody.
- District court held both parents good but mother more involved in daily care, education, religion, and medical decisions.
- Final divorce judgment awarded primary residential responsibility to the mother, with a parenting plan and religious provision.
- Father challenged best-interest determinations, weight of oldest children’s preferences, and the parenting-plan provisions including religion.
- Court remanded to add missing statutorily mandated parenting-plan provisions and to modify the religious clause while affirming most of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether best-interest factors supported mother’s primary residence | Schlieve argues factors were not clearly equal; mother should not have primary residential responsibility | Court correctly found factors largely equal and considered mature-child preferences | Not clearly erroneous; factors largely equal; remand for missing provisions |
| Did maturity of two older children justify their preferences privileging mother | Older children’ s preferences should not be determinative | Court properly weighed mature-child preferences under §14-09-06.2(i) | Court’s reliance on mature-children preferences upheld; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the week-on, week-off interim arrangement disrupted stability; was discontinuation proper | Interim plan provided stability; end disrupted routine | Stability is one factor; overall custody decision supported by other considerations | Discontinuation supported; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether religious provisions should have been included or limited in parenting plan | Religious provisions should reflect mutual parental decisions; no mandatory church attendance | Parenting-time order may address religion-related participation | Religious provision improper; remand to include language clarifying parental decision or omit religion clause |
| Whether mandated statutorily required parenting-plan provisions were missing | Plan failed to include required subsections (b), (e), (f) | Record lacking; court should include missing provisions on information sharing, transportation, review, etc. | Remand to add missing statutorily mandated provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Barstad v. Barstad, 499 N.W.2d 584 (ND 1993) (maturity and best interests; weight of child’s preferences)
- Loll v. Loll, 561 N.W.2d 625 (ND 1997) (age-based maturity and custody decisions)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 778 N.W.2d 786 (ND 2010) (custody findings; clearly erroneous standard; deference to district court)
- DesLauriers v. DesLauriers, 642 N.W.2d 892 (ND 2002) (consideration of best-interests factors; sufficiency of findings)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 404 N.W.2d 460 (ND 1987) (religious-provision concerns in custody)
- Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621 (ND 1986) (caution against dividing custody; sibling considerations)
- Stoppler v. Stoppler, 633 N.W.2d 142 (ND 2001) (split custody generally disfavored; effect on siblings)
- Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695 (ND 1995) (visitation findings; standards of review)
- Minar v. Minar, 625 N.W.2d 518 (ND 2001) (adequacy of custody findings)