Stoddard v. Singer, 954 N.W.2d 696

Background

Parties: Daniel J. Stoddard (father/appellant) and Christina J. Singer (mother/appellee); child M.S.S. (born 2010); Singer has a daughter J.B.G. (born 2006) with no legal/biological tie to Stoddard.
Divorce (2017) by agreement awarded Singer primary residential responsibility for M.S.S.; Stoddard received limited holiday and summer parenting time.
Stoddard filed motions to modify/enforce (May 2018; amended Dec 2018) seeking change of primary residential responsibility and other relief; a July 2019 evidentiary hearing was held.
Stoddard filed an emergency motion (Sept 2019) seeking interim custody; hearing was delayed until Jan 21, 2020, when the court interviewed both children; district court denied the emergency motion and later denied modification; amended parenting plan/judgment were filed May 18, 2020.
Stoddard also sought visitation/time with non-biological child J.B.G. as a "psychological parent," and requested appointment of a parenting investigator; the court denied the investigator and declined to permit the psychological-parent claim to proceed.
On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed denial of modification, affirmed denial of a parenting investigator and the delay in the emergency hearing, but reversed the refusal to allow the psychological-parent claim re: J.B.G. and remanded to determine whether a prima facie case exists.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stoddard)	Defendant's Argument (Singer)	Held
Whether Stoddard met burden to change primary residential responsibility within two years	Singer neglected/deprived M.S.S.; failed to meet medical/dental/educational needs; alcohol/marijuana use endangered child; willful interference with parenting time; material change in circumstances	Investigations found no neglect/abuse; evidence conflicted; no proof of drug/alcohol use around child or intentional interference; summer parenting maintained	Affirmed — district court's factual findings not clearly erroneous; Stoddard failed to meet statutory burden for modification
Whether the court erred by not appointing a parenting investigator	Requested investigator to evaluate parenting/child welfare	Court has discretion; no showing appointment was required or abused	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion shown
Whether the court erred by delaying the Rule 8.2 emergency hearing beyond 30 days	Delay harmed child; Rule requires hearing within 30 days for interim orders	Court was already considering pending motions and evidentiary hearing had occurred; prima facie considerations made delay reasonable	Affirmed — given case circumstances, appellant did not show error in delay
Whether Stoddard could proceed on a psychological-parent claim for J.B.G.	He acted as a parental figure to J.B.G. and should get visitation as a psychological parent	J.B.G. has a biological father whose rights are not terminated; no threshold prima facie showing was established	Reversed and remanded — district court erred in not determining prima facie case or allowing hearing on psychological-parent visitation; remand to assess prima facie threshold

Key Cases Cited

Regan v. Lervold, 844 N.W.2d 576 (2014 ND) (standard of review: custody modification findings are reviewed for clear error)
Vandal v. Leno, 843 N.W.2d 313 (2014 ND) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
In re Disciplinary Action against Albrecht, 779 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 2010) (deference to factfinder on credibility and mitigating findings)
Roberson v. Roberson, 688 N.W.2d 380 (2004 ND) (bench court is determiner of credibility)
McDowell v. McDowell, 670 N.W.2d 876 (2003 ND) (same principle on credibility and factual findings)
Dietz v. Dietz, 733 N.W.2d 225 (2007 ND) (prima facie requirement for interim custody hearing)
Morton Cty. Soc. Serv. Bd. v. Cramer, 780 N.W.2d 688 (2010 ND) (timing of motion controls applicable custody-modification standard)
Bredeson v. Mackey, 842 N.W.2d 860 (2014 ND) (recognizes psychological-parent/established-relationship exceptions to parental rights)
In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995) (requires prima facie showing before nonparent visitation is adjudicated)
A.F. v. D.L.P., 771 A.2d 692 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (applies multi-prong prima facie test for psychological-parent claims)
Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (1999 ND) (discretionary nature of court-ordered parenting investigations)