State v. Anaya-Verajerano, 2012 ND 210

Allen Hammeren and Kelli Hammeren married in 2001 and have one child together (born 2000); each party has a child from a prior relationship; they separated in July 2010.
In September 2010, Allen filed for divorce; the parties stipulated to many issues but could not agree on a parenting plan for their child.
A May 2011 trial addressed residential responsibility and parenting plan; the court awarded Kelli primary residential responsibility to Allen’s parenting time.
The court awarded child support to Kelli in the amount of $1,014 per month commencing October 1, 2010.
After judgment, Allen sought to alter the start date of child support to June 1, 2011 and to receive credits for prior payments; the court granted a credit but kept October 1, 2010 as the start date.
On appeal, the issue was whether the trial court’s findings on best interests and the decision to adopt a non-shared plan were clearly erroneous, and whether starting child support in 2010 was proper; the Supreme Court affirmed.]
Note: The above condenses the procedural posture and legally material facts essential to the court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the primary residential responsibility assignment clearly erroneous?	Hammeren contends factors favored him more.	Hammeren argues trial court’s findings favored mother.	Not clearly erroneous; court’s broad discretion given deference on best-interests factors.
Did the trial court properly analyze best-interest factors (d), (e), (f), (h)?	Hammeren disputes lack of detailed findings supporting these factors.	Hammeren asserts trial court adequately evaluated evidence; no clear error.	Findings on factors (d), (e), (f), and (h) supported by record; not clearly erroneous.
Was excluding the child’s testimony under factor (i) appropriate?	Child should have testified to express preference.	Court exercised discretion; age and dispute warranted not placing child in the middle.	Yes; court did not abuse discretion; child’s preference not determinative.
Was commencement date of child support and the credits appropriate?	Support should start later; request for credits.	Court can decide start date and credits; post-judgment relief review standard.	Court did not abuse discretion; credit granted for prior payments; start date Oct 1, 2010 affirmed.

Seay v. Seay, 2012 ND 179 (2012 ND 179) (best-interests framework in custody decisions; deference to trial court)
Morris v. Moller, 2012 ND 74 (2012 ND 74) (standard for reviewing custody factual findings; no reweighing on appeal)
Miller v. Mees, 2011 ND 166 (2011 ND 166) (standard of review for custody decisions; deference to trial court)
Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (2010 ND 26) (clearly erroneous standard for custody awards; fact-finding sufficiency)
Duff v. Kearns-Duff, 2010 ND 247 (2010 ND 247) (deferential review of custody decisions; weight of evidence)
Reineke v. Reineke, 2003 ND 167 (2003 ND 167) (discretion in allowing/excluding evidence and witness testimony)
Novak v. Novak, 441 N.W.2d 656 (ND 1989) (child’s mature preference as one factor; not usually determinative)
Kasprowicz v. Kasprowicz, 1998 ND 68 (1998 ND 68) (rotating custody and parental schedules; stability considerations)
Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34 (2001 ND 34) (require factual support for rotating custody findings)
Kjelland v. Kjelland, 2000 ND 86 (2000 ND 86) (shared duties and schedules supporting custody analysis)
Nefzger v. Nefzger, 1999 ND 119 (1999 ND 119) (work schedule flexibility and child-care implications)
Shaw v. Shaw, 2002 ND 114 (2002 ND 114) (considerations of parental schedules and stability)
Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236 (2006 ND 236) (work schedules and home stability in custody cases)