Seay v. Seay
820 N.W.2d 705
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Darren and Svetlana Seay met in Ukraine (2003) and married in 2004 in Wishek, North Dakota, where they lived with their two children, A.M.S. and N.A.S.
- A.M.S. was born in 2005; N.A.S. was from Svetlana’s prior marriage and was adopted by Darren in 2006; both parents worked (Darren as a pharmacist, Svetlana as a hairstylist).
- The parties separated in 2010, Svetlana sued for divorce, and the district court awarded Svetlana primary residential responsibility for both children and Darren parenting time with A.M.S.; Svetlana was permitted to move out of North Dakota with the children without further consent or court order.
- Darren was ordered to pay child support, spousal support, and to purchase/maintain a life insurance policy on himself as security for future support obligations.
- The district court later addressed life insurance as security, and Darren challenged the order as an improper upward deviation from guidelines; Svetlana’s relocation with the children was also challenged.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the primary residence award in Svetlana’s favor in part, reversed the relocation provision, and affirmed the life-insurance security order as not an improper deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s award of primary residential responsibility was clearly erroneous | Seay argues the district court erred in awarding Svetlana primary residency. | Seay contends weight of best interests factors supports a different outcome. | Not clearly erroneous; Svetlana affirmed as primary custodian. |
| Whether ordering life insurance as security for future support was an abuse of discretion or improper deviation | Seay claims the insurance requirement was an upward deviation from guidelines without proper factual basis. | Seay argues security orders are permissible and within court discretion. | Not an abuse of discretion; security order upheld. |
| Whether the relocation provision allowing move out of state without consent or further order was proper | Seay contends the Court erred by permitting relocation without adequate analysis. | Seay argues relocation can be in child’s best interests when supported by findings. | Reversed; district court erred by not applying Stout-Hawkinson factors and by issuing an open-ended authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Moller, 2012 ND 74 (North Dakota (2012)) (establishes standard for best interests analysis)
- Miller v. Mees, 2011 ND 166 (North Dakota (2011)) (best interests factors guidance)
- Pember v. Shapiro, 2011 ND 31 (North Dakota (2011)) (outlines consideration of relocation and best interests)
- Duff v. Keamrns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (North Dakota (2010)) (standard for reviewing primary residential responsibility)
- Fleck v. Fleck, 2010 ND 24 (North Dakota (2010)) (deference to district court custody findings)
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2007 ND 66 (North Dakota (2007)) (requires addressing all four Stout-Hawkinson factors)
- Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 (North Dakota (1997)) (early formulation of relocation considerations)
- Snyder v. Snyder, 2010 ND 161 (North Dakota (2010)) (security for spousal support requires factual basis and notice)
- Wold v. Wold, 2008 ND 14 (North Dakota (2008)) (upholds insurance-security mechanism for support)
- Thomas v. Stone, 2006 ND 59 (North Dakota (2006)) (recognizes authority to require reasonable security for support)