Seay v. Seay
2015 ND 42
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Darren Seay and Svetlana Seay married in 2004 and divorced in 2011; Svetlana was awarded primary residential responsibility and travel with the child was contemplated, then reversed by this Court in 2012.
- In February 2014 Svetlana requested district court approval to relocate with the child to Ohio to live with her new husband; Darren opposed and sought modification of primary residential responsibility.
- The district court found two material changes: Svetlana’s remarriage and her proposed move; it deemed these changes positive and not adverse to the child's best interests, and did not analyze the best‑interest factors, proceeding instead under Stout‑Hawkinson relocation factors.
- The court granted Svetlana’s relocation request and denied Darren’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility.
- Darren appealed, arguing the district court erred by failing to analyze the best‑interest factors before denying modification; he did not challenge the application of the Stout‑Hawkinson factors.
- This Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court must first analyze the best‑interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.2 before denying modification, and only then consider relocation under Stout‑Hawkinson if modification is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the best‑interest factors be analyzed before modification? | Seay contends best interests must be analyzed prior to denying modification. | Seay contends best interests should be considered; the district court merely found changes positive. | Yes; remand to analyze the best‑interest factors first. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lechler v. Lechler, 2010 ND 158 (2010) (clear error standard for modification determinations)
- Glass v. Glass, 2011 ND 145 (2011) (requirement that modification serve the child’s best interests)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106 (2014) (best‑interest factors apply when modification is considered)
- Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 (1997) (four factors for evaluating relocations in custodial moves)
- Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 (1999) (clarification of relocation factors in Stout‑Hawkinson)
- Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36 (2006) (joint custody required best‑interests showing for relocation rulewhen change in custody is involved)
- Vining v. Renton, 2012 ND 86 (2012) (two considerations in best‑interest analysis for relocation/ custody)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106 (2014) (balancing best interests against stability and status quo in custody moves)