State v. Pederson
2011 ND 17
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Married June 22, 2002; separated and later divorced with a default judgment (Feb. 10, 2003).
- Children: R.M.D. (born 2003; Doll listed as biological father on birth certificate via paternity acknowledgment) and D.A.D. (born 2006).
- 2008 separation; Claeys moved out and initially shared custody, later seeking primary residential responsibility; Doll sought primary custody in Minnesota while Claeys sought it in North Dakota.
- Custody investigator Jason Loos issued preliminary report (July 2, 2009) finding no factor favored Claeys, some favoritism to Doll, and false allegations by Claeys; later (Feb. 5, 2010) recommended shared residential and decision-making responsibility.
- Trial court held a 3-day trial (Feb. 8–10, 2010) and, in March 2010, awarded primary residential responsibility to Claeys; Doll appealed contending clear error.
- Appellate standard: abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous review of best interests factors; court affirmed, finding no clear error and no undue weight on factor (k).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in awarding Claeys primary residential responsibility. | Doll contends the court failed to properly weigh best interests. | Claeys argues the court properly weighed factors and credibility. | No clear error; award affirmed. |
| Whether the court properly considered all best interests factors. | Doll claims factors were misapplied or incomplete. | Claeys asserts factors were properly addressed and weighed. | Factors (a)-(m) considered; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the court give undue weight to factor (k) (household stability) and ignored Claeys’ alleged alienation. | Claeys’ new husband stability and past instability were improperly weighed. | Court properly weighed (k) and credibility; no improper emphasis. | No undue weight on (k); factor (k) not favoring either party. |
| Whether Claeys’ sexual abuse report against Doll was made in good faith. | Claim that report was unfounded or manufactured. | Court found report was made in good faith and credible. | Finding of good faith not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether parental alienation evidence warranted denial of primary custody. | Claeys engaged in alienation and frustrated Doll’s parenting time. | No willful alienation established; no preclusion of primary custody. | No willful alienation; not clearly erroneous to award Claeys. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molitor v. Molitor, 2006 ND 163 (2006 ND 163) (clearly erroneous standard; support for fact-specific review)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (2010 ND 26) (custody investigator weight within trial court discretion)
- Dronen v. Dronen, 2009 ND 70 (2009 ND 70) (credibility/deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Eifert v. Eifert, 2006 ND 240 (2006 ND 240) (forward-looking analysis of factor (e) stability of custodial home)
- DesLauriers v. DesLauriers, 2002 ND 66 (2002 ND 66) (age-related consideration of child preference in custody)