Scott v. Scott
2021 ND 128
| N.D. | 2021Background
- Amber Napier (formerly Amber Scott) and Ryan P. Scott divorced in 2017 by a pro se stipulation that awarded equal/respective residential responsibility; judgment incorporated the stipulation. The judgment was slightly amended by stipulation in December 2019.
- Scott moved in April 2020 to modify primary residential responsibility, claiming he had the children ~70% of the time for over six months and that Napier’s home environment was unstable (eviction, multiple moves, new husband with felony conviction) and neglectful of children's hygiene and schooling.
- The district court found a prima facie case, and an evidentiary hearing occurred in September 2020 with conflicting testimony on parenting time percentages, effects of both parents’ remarriages, Napier’s eviction/moves, school attendance, and children’s welfare.
- The district court denied Scott’s motion in October 2020, finding Scott failed to prove a material change in circumstances (including rejecting the 70% time claim and crediting testimony that Napier’s husband posed no danger).
- Scott appealed, arguing the court erred by not finding a material change and by not analyzing the best-interests factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances occurred since the prior residential-responsibility order | Scott: children lived with him ~70% of time; Napier’s eviction, instability, and remarriage to a convicted felon are new, material facts warranting modification | Napier: contested time accounting; testimony showed stability after moves and that her husband posed no danger; no material change | Court: No material change established; credibility disputes supported denial |
| Whether court erred by not evaluating child's best interests after finding no material change | Scott: court should have considered cumulative evidence and then best-interest factors | Napier: court need not reach best-interest analysis if no material change is shown | Court: Because no material change was found, no best-interest analysis was required and denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoddard v. Singer, 954 N.W.2d 696 (N.D. 2021) (standard of review for modifying primary residential responsibility)
- Dickson v. Dickson, 912 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 2018) (application of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 to stipulated custody orders)
- Valeu v. Strube, 905 N.W.2d 728 (N.D. 2018) (burden to show material change and best-interest necessity)
- Heidt v. Heidt, 923 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2019) (material change defined as an important new fact unknown at prior decision)
- Woods v. Ryan, 696 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 2005) (deference to trial court credibility findings in custody disputes)
- Roberson v. Roberson, 688 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 2004) (appellate court will not redetermine credibility-based factual findings)
- Rustad v. Baumgartner, 943 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2020) (examples of facts that may constitute material changes)
- Glass v. Glass, 800 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2011) (no need to address best-interests if no material change found)