Smith v. Martinez
800 N.W.2d 304
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Parents Dominique L. Smith and Angie Abigail Martinez are unmarried and share a child, C.R.S., born in 2009.
- Smith sought primary residential responsibility; Martinez currently has it with Smith’s parenting time.
- During proceedings, both alleged the other engaged in domestic violence; district court made some DV-related findings but did not address the DV presumption.
- District court awarded Martinez primary residential responsibility; Smith appealed asserting error in applying the DV presumption and other best-interests factors.
- Court reviews for clear error; must consider all relevant factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and apply the DV presumption when applicable.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court reverses and remands for more detailed findings on factor (j) and the DV presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly applied the domestic violence presumption. | Smith argues presumption should apply as evidence of DV. | Martinez contends presumption not clearly established by findings. | Remanded for detailed findings on factor (j) and applicability of DV presumption. |
| Whether the district court adequately supported factor (d) about home environment. | Smith contends findings do not align with evidence. | Martinez shows stable home environment; evidence supports court’s conclusions. | Findings insufficient; remand to address factor (d) with record support. |
| Whether the district court adequately supported factor (e) about facilitating parenting time. | Smith asserts Martinez hindered parenting time. | Martinez asserts willingness to allow and facilitate time with Smith. | Findings supported court's conclusions but remand needed for DV presumption analysis. |
| Whether factors (f) and (g) about moral/mental health affected the outcome; error in weighing. | Smith argues mental health and criminal history improperly considered. | Martinez argues health history does not adversely affect child; evidence supports findings. | Court may reweigh on remand; need clearer connection to best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boeckel v. Boeckel, 2010 ND 130 (2010) (clear-error standard; must cite detailed findings for DV presumption)
- Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (2010) (standard for reviewing a custody decision; no reweighing on appeal)
- Cox v. Cox, 2000 ND 144 (2000) (require detailed findings when applying presumption)
- P.A. v. A.H.O., 2008 ND 194 (2008) (need sufficient findings to explain presumption application)
- Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153 (2006) (preservation and explanation of domestic violence findings)