Taylor v. Taylor, 970 N.W.2d 209

Background

Aaron and Leah Taylor divorced in 2018; Leah was awarded primary residential responsibility for two daughters (born 2008 and 2011) and Aaron received reasonable parenting time.
The court found Aaron repeatedly violated the divorce judgment and engaged in emotionally abusive conduct toward the children; Aaron was ordered into chemical dependency treatment and placed on a graduated parenting-time plan.
A second amended judgment reduced Aaron’s parenting time to supervised visitation after continued violations, including unauthorized electronic contact and disparaging the mother to the children.
Aaron completed treatment and moved to modify parenting time in Dec. 2020; Leah filed a countermotion seeking elimination of visitation, sole decisionmaking authority, and further restrictions, alleging harm to the children.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Aaron’s communications had harmed the children (including self-harm and suicidal ideation by the older child), suspended in-person and telephone contact subject to a graduated plan, granted Leah sole decisionmaking authority, and authorized Leah to supervise/limit future contact under defined conditions.
Aaron appealed; the Supreme Court treated the appeal as from the final judgment and affirmed the district court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leah)	Defendant's Argument (Aaron)	Held
Whether parenting time should be modified/suspended because it is likely to endanger the children’s physical or emotional health	Aaron’s communications and violations have materially harmed both children and continued contact would likely cause physical or emotional harm	Leah failed to prove harm to L.A.T.; evidence mainly concerns A.G.T.; mother offered no expert testimony tying Aaron’s conduct to harm	Court: modification/suspension justified — record supports findings that Aaron’s conduct endangered both children and risked harm to L.A.T. as well as A.G.T.
Whether expert testimony was required to show likely harm from visitation	Parental testimony and the record sufficiently demonstrate harm and nexus to Aaron’s conduct	Expert testimony was necessary to prove causation of harm	Court: expert testimony not required; lay and medical records suffice to support findings (Hanson).
Whether suspension/restriction of parenting time was an appropriate remedy	Prior graduated and supervised plans were tried; Aaron’s willful, repeated violations justify temporary suspension with potential future gradual restoration	Any restriction should be minimal; termination/suspension is drastic and unsupported	Court: suspension permissible here — alternative measures were tried and violations continued; suspension is temporary with path to future parenting time.
Whether Leah should be granted sole decisionmaking authority	Aaron’s interference with treatment and attempts to discharge child from care show he shouldn’t share decisionmaking; sole authority is in children’s best interests	Court improperly took decisionmaking from Aaron without sufficient basis	Court: affirmed grant of sole decisionmaking to Leah based on record showing Aaron undermined medical/therapeutic care.
Whether the court impermissibly delegated control by allowing Leah to supervise/terminate Aaron’s contact	Supervision/limited discretion is necessary given Aaron’s history; Leah is willing to foster father–child relationship and restrictions are conditional	Court cannot give custodial parent total control over visitation	Court: supervision authorized as an exceptional measure here; custody not permanently delegated — Leah’s authority is conditioned and limited by specific violation criteria.

Key Cases Cited

Curtiss v. Curtiss, 891 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 2017) (standard for modifying parenting time and requirement to show likely physical or emotional harm)
Wilson v. Ibarra, 718 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2006) (complete denial of visitation is drastic; court must show nexus between visitation and likely harm and consider alternatives)
Marquette v. Marquette, 719 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 2006) (custodial parent should not be given total control over noncustodial parent’s visitation except in exceptional circumstances)
Wigginton v. Wigginton, 692 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2005) (upholding reasonable visitation provisions conducted at custodial parent’s discretion where warranted)
Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 603 N.W.2d 896 (N.D. 2000) (visitation presumptively in child’s best interests; rights of the child emphasized)
Hanson v. Hanson, 404 N.W.2d 460 (N.D. 1987) (expert medical/psychological testimony not required to show likely physical or emotional harm)