879 N.W.2d 464
N.D.2016Background
- Nonmarital parents Shannon Strating and Kenneth Andres share one child; Strating sought child support and paternity was established by the State.
- An interim order awarded Strating primary residential responsibility and limited parenting time to Andres; parties failed to agree on a parenting plan after trial.
- At trial the judge orally indicated Strating should have primary responsibility but encouraged as-equal-as-possible parenting time; the written judgment instead awarded equal primary residential responsibility and alternating biweekly custody.
- The written judgment contained a detailed holiday schedule and alternated tax exemptions; it did not order child support or include certain statutorily required parenting-plan provisions (transportation/exchange details and explanation for school legal residence decisions).
- Strating and the State appealed, arguing errors in the best-interest analysis, parenting plan content, inconsistency between oral and written orders, and failure to calculate child support as required by law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strating/State) | Defendant's Argument (Andres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equal residential responsibility award was clearly erroneous under best-interest factors | Trial court misapplied or made clearly erroneous findings on factors (d), (e), (j), (k), (m); Strating should be primary | District court’s findings on best-interest factors are supported by the record | Affirmed — court’s best-interest findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court’s written judgment conflicted with its oral pronouncement favoring Strating as primary | Oral ruling indicated Strating primary; written order gave equal primary responsibility, so court erred | Written findings control over oral statements; written judgment governs | Held for Andres — no error: written judgment controls and may differ from oral statements |
| Whether the parenting plan omitted required provisions (transportation/exchange details and explanation for school residence) | Omission of transportation/exchange details and justification for legal school residence violated N.D.C.C. §14-09-30(2) | Court provided exchanges and school residence but omitted travel logistics; argued current provisions sufficient | Reversed in part — court must add missing parenting-plan provisions or explain omission on remand |
| Whether the court erred by not calculating child support when awarding equal residential responsibility | Statute and Admin. Code require support calculations for each parent in equal-responsibility cases; omission was legal error | Court omitted support because parenting time and responsibility were equal and therefore no support was ordered | Reversed — court must compute statutorily mandated child support calculations for each parent and offset obligations as required; remanded for inclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Law v. Whittet, 844 N.W.2d 885 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reversing district court custody findings)
- Schmidt v. Schmidt, 660 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. 2003) (court must consider all factors in N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑06.2(1) when deciding best interests)
- P.A. v. A.H.O., 757 N.W.2d 58 (N.D. 2008) (best-interests analysis is fact-intensive; factors may carry different weight)
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 823 N.W.2d 482 (N.D. 2012) (deferential review of custody decisions between fit parents)
- Brown v. Brodell, 756 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 2008) (written judgments control over prior oral statements when inconsistent)
- Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 705 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 2005) (same principle: written judgment prevails over oral ruling)
- Fenske v. Fenske, 542 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1996) (written findings supersede prior memorandum or oral rulings)
- Keita v. Keita, 823 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2012) (standards of review for child support determinations)
- Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1999) (child support determinations involve mixed standards of review)
- Becker v. Becker, 799 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 2011) (failure to state support calculations is legal error requiring reversal)
- Heinle v. Heinle, 777 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 2010) (applying child support guidelines and the requirement to explain calculations)