State v. Neustel
790 N.W.2d 476
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Albrecht and Neustel never married; they have a daughter born in 2002 with a 2005 paternity order granting Albrecht primary residential responsibility and Neustel reasonable parenting time and child support.
- Since separation in 2004, Albrecht moved multiple times and had several long-term relationships; Neustel remarried in 2007 and lived in Milnor with his wife and her two daughters.
- Albrecht’s support system in Carrington (extended family) was more available there than after moving to Mandan.
- In summer 2009, Albrecht and the child moved from Carrington to Mandan, prompting Neustel to file a motion to change primary residential responsibility.
- The district court granted Neustel’s motion, holding there had been a material change of circumstances and awarded primary residential responsibility to Neustel.
- Albrecht appeals, arguing the court erred in finding a material change of circumstances and that the court failed to make sufficient, explicit findings showing modification was necessary to serve the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material change in circumstances | Albrecht contends there was no material change | Neustel contends there was a material change | Not clearly erroneous that a material change occurred |
| Necessity of modification for best interests | No clear finding that change was necessary | Court should modify if best interests require it | Findings insufficient to show modification necessary; remanded for explicit findings |
| Sufficiency of findings on best interests factors | Court failed to tie factors to the decision | Record supports best interests analysis | Remand for explicit, specific findings of fact and conclusions of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lechler v. Lechler, 2010 ND 158, 786 N.W.2d 733 (ND 2010) (defines material change in circumstances and standard of review for modification)
- Frueh v. Frueh, 2009 ND 155, 771 N.W.2d 593 (ND 2009) (burden on petitioner to show material change and necessity for modification)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221, 758 N.W.2d 691 (ND 2008) (describes material change as important new fact not known earlier)
- Machart v. Machart, 2009 ND 208, 776 N.W.2d 795 (ND 2009) (emphasizes stability of the child’s relationship in best interests analysis)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 2009 ND 193, 775 N.W.2d 486 (ND 2009) (reinforces standard that modification is a factual finding reviewed for clear error)