Stai-Johnson v. Johnson
2015 ND 99
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Deanne Stai-Johnson (custodial parent) was awarded primary residential responsibility for younger child J.M.J.; Mitchell Johnson (noncustodial) has primary responsibility for older child R.S.J.
- Stai-Johnson filed to relocate with J.M.J. from Fargo, ND to Kelliher/Bemidji, MN for family support, employment opportunities (including employer-provided college credit), and lower-cost public schooling.
- Johnson opposed, citing loss of parenting time with J.M.J. and harm to the close sibling relationship between J.M.J. and R.S.J.
- A judicial referee applied the Stout–Hawkinson relocation factors, found the move was not in the children’s best interests, noting (1) no clear educational/extracurricular advantage, (2) long commutes that would reduce parent availability, (3) significant loss of parenting time for Johnson, and (4) likely deterioration of the brothers’ close relationship.
- Stai-Johnson appealed, arguing erroneous application of factors one (advantages) and four (impact on noncustodial-parent relationship and visitation).
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the referee’s factual findings under factors one and four were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to MN is in child’s best interests under Stout–Hawkinson factor 1 (prospective advantages) | Move provides family support, employment/education prospects (free college credit), and a good, cheaper public school for J.M.J. | Current Fargo schools and activities are comparable; benefits are not materially greater and commute/parental absence undermines advantages | Court held referee reasonably found advantages did not outweigh continuity/stability concerns; factor 1 findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether relocation preserves noncustodial parent’s relationship under factor 4 (visitation restructuring) | Proposed alternate schedule would preserve Johnson’s relationship despite increased distance | Move would substantially reduce Johnson’s routine parenting time and harm the father–child bond and sibling contact | Court held referee reasonably found loss of regular parenting time and sibling contact significant; factor 4 findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether sibling separation should be considered in best-interest analysis | Move would not meaningfully harm sibling bond given possible restructured visitation | Separation would reduce proximity and personal contact between close siblings, especially given strained mother–older son relationship | Court approved consideration of sibling separation and affirmed that it weighed against relocation |
| Whether referee applied proper legal standard and burden of proof | Custodial parent met burden to show best interest through advantages | Noncustodial parent need not prove bad motive; court must weigh all Stout–Hawkinson factors | Court affirmed proper application of law and burden; overall denial affirmed because findings were supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. Stout, 560 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1997) (establishes multi-factor relocation framework)
- Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 591 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1999) (modifies Stout factors and clarifies relocation analysis)
- Graner v. Graner, 738 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2007) (lists relevant considerations for factor one such as employment, support network, and education)
- Schmidt v. Bakke, 691 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 2005) (recognizes importance of sibling relationships in relocation analysis)
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 730 N.W.2d 833 (N.D. 2007) (standard of review: relocation determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)