State, County of Cass, Ex Rel. Seibold v. Leverington, 2013 ND 173

Background

Parents never married; one child (born 2004). 2006 decree named Leverington the father, awarded Seibold sole decisionmaking and primary residential responsibility; Leverington received parenting time. 2009 modification awarded Leverington sole decisionmaking and primary residential responsibility after finding material change and best interests favored him; Seibold did not appeal that amended judgment.
Seibold later moved (2011) to modify parenting time, hold Leverington in contempt, and seek a second amended judgment; district court initially denied without hearing; this Court reversed and remanded in a prior appeal, holding she was entitled to a hearing.
On remand, both parties filed competing motions (including supervised exchanges, parental-capacity evaluations, contempt, and restrictions on school visits). The district court held evidentiary hearings in July–August 2012 and took extensive testimony and exhibits.
In November 2012 the court issued a 32‑page memorandum: denied Seibold’s motion to change primary residential responsibility but granted joint decisionmaking, expanded Seibold’s parenting time, appointed a parenting coordinator, and found both parents in contempt on different claims; attorney fee requests were denied.
The district court found a material change in circumstances (child’s emotional/behavioral problems and telephone access disputes) but concluded a transfer of primary residential responsibility would not serve the child’s best interests, emphasizing stability and that both parents are fit.

Issues

Issue	Seibold's Argument	Leverington's Argument	Held
Whether court erred in denying motion to modify primary residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.6	Material change occurred (child’s emotional/physical regression caused by prior change and Leverington’s conduct) and modification to Seibold is necessary for best interests	Child’s stability with Leverington and evidence do not justify transferring custody; other remedies (parenting coordinator, increased parenting time) suffice	Court did not clearly err: found material change but concluded transfer would harm stability; denial affirmed
Whether parenting time award and lack of detailed statutory parenting plan violated N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑30	Order is ambiguous/flexible and fails to address required elements (birthdays, vacations, review procedure); more rigid plan needed	Flexibility plus parenting coordinator is appropriate; coordinator can resolve details or court can clarify if disputes persist	Parenting time award and use of parenting coordinator substantially comply with statute; award not clearly erroneous
Whether district court’s factual findings were internally inconsistent or misapplied the best‑interest factors	Findings (many negative findings about Leverington) conflict with legal conclusion denying modification	Findings viewed in context: court considered full record and used negative findings to justify remedies other than custody change	No clear error; court’s detailed analysis of statutory factors supports conclusion
Whether court erred by denying summary relief and later procedures on remand	She contends she was entitled to relief and clearer remedies	Court followed remand and held evidentiary hearings before ruling	Procedures on remand were proper; substantive rulings affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Hageman v. Hageman, 2013 ND 29, 827 N.W.2d 23 (framework for post‑judgment modification under § 14‑09‑06.6)
Frison v. Ohlhauser, 2012 ND 35, 812 N.W.2d 445 (burden on moving party to prove material change)
Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221, 758 N.W.2d 691 (definition of material change; environment that endangers child)
Vining v. Renton, 2012 ND 86, 816 N.W.2d 63 (stability with custodial parent and presumption favoring status quo)
Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26, 778 N.W.2d 786 (need for sufficient specificity in findings on best‑interest factors)
Hammeren v. Hammeren, 2012 ND 225, 823 N.W.2d 482 (deferential review in custody decisions between fit parents)
Frieze v. Frieze, 2005 ND 53, 692 N.W.2d 912 (use other remedies before changing residential responsibility for parental misbehavior)
In re N.C.M., 2013 ND 132, 834 N.W.2d 270 (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)
Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, 825 N.W.2d 245 (parenting time decisions reviewed for clear error)
Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71, 830 N.W.2d 571 (role and limits of parenting coordinators and court’s duty to issue plan)
Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 2000 ND 1, 603 N.W.2d 896 (parenting time is presumed to be in child’s best interests)
Bertsch v. Bertsch, 2006 ND 31, 710 N.W.2d 113 (best interests paramount over parental wishes)