State v. Walker
2010 ND 214
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Gussiaas (Albrecht) and Neustel, not married, have a daughter born in 2002.
- A 2005 paternity/judgment awarded Albrecht primary residential responsibility with Neustel having parenting time and child support.
- Albrecht lived in Carrington; Neustel lived in Milnor; he later remarried and lived with his wife and her two daughters.
- In summer 2009 Albrecht moved the child to Mandan after a court-ordered increase in Neustel’s child support.
- Neustel filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and the district court granted the change to Neustel.
- The district court found a material change in circumstances but did not clearly articulate a finding that the change was necessary to serve the child’s best interests; on appeal the court remanded for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances | Albrecht argues no material change occurred. | Neustel contends there was a material change due to relocation and instability. | Material change found not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the change in primary residential responsibility was necessary | Albrecht asserts no requirement to modify for best interests. | Neustel argues modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests. | Court held findings insufficient to conclude necessity; remanded for explicit findings. |
| Sufficiency of district court findings for appellate review | Albrecht contends findings were too vague to review best interests. | Neustel contends findings support the modification. | Findings insufficient for meaningful review; remanded for explicit, specific findings. |
| Whether the court properly balanced best interests with stability | Albrecht asserts stability with prior arrangement should be given weight. | Neustel emphasizes changed circumstances require adjustment. | Remand to articulate how best interests are weighed against stability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lechler v. Lechler, 2010 ND 158 (2010) (defines material change in circumstances and burden to prove it, and necessity for modification)
- Frueh v. Frueh, 2009 ND 155 (2009) (necessity of modification must serve child’s best interests)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221 (2008) (material change must be important new fact not known previously)
- Machart v. Machart, 2009 ND 208 (2009) (best interests factors weighed against stability of the child’s relationship)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 2009 ND 193 (2009) (trustworthy standard for reviewing custody determinations; clearly erroneous unless supported by evidence)
- Lovin v. Lovin, 1997 ND 55 (1997) (modification requires compelling change to serve child's best interests)
- Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26 (2010) (addressing alienation considerations in custodial disputes)
- Boeckel v. Boeckel, 2010 ND 130 (2010) (requires specific and detailed findings when domestic violence is alleged)
- Cox v. Cox, 2000 ND 144 (2000) (presumption related to domestic violence requires explicit findings)