Thomas v. Thomas, 936 N.W.2d 109

Background

Matthew and SummerLee Thomas married in 2008 and have two children (born 2008 and 2009).
Matthew filed for divorce in May 2018; after a February 2019 trial the district court granted the divorce and awarded joint residential responsibility for the children.
Key factual disputes: (1) H.M.T., then age 10, had online conversations with an adult male; SummerLee learned of it and told the child to stop; (2) SummerLee allegedly slapped Matthew multiple times in front of the children after learning of his affair.
The district court found SummerLee stopped the inappropriate online contact, concluded the slapping constituted domestic violence but that no serious bodily injury occurred, and adopted only parts of the parties’ stipulated parenting plan without explaining omissions.
Matthew appealed challenging the court’s application of best-interest factors (a) and (c), the domestic-violence presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j), and the district court’s failure to explain omitted stipulations.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part but remanded with instructions (retaining jurisdiction) for the district court to make specific findings about whether a pattern of domestic violence triggered the statutory presumption and to explain why stipulated terms were omitted or to adopt them.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of best-interest factors (a) & (c) (love/affection; developmental needs)	Matthew: findings unsupported by evidence, relying on the child’s online contact with an adult and SummerLee’s knowledge.	SummerLee: testimony supports that she was unaware at the time and stopped the contact; district court has discretion and may credit that testimony.	Affirmed: court’s findings under (a) and (c) were not clearly erroneous.
Domestic-violence presumption under §14‑09‑06.2(1)(j) (one incident with serious injury or dangerous weapon, or pattern proximate to proceeding)	Matthew: court erred by focusing only on serious bodily injury and not treating the admitted multiple slaps as a pattern that triggers the presumption.	SummerLee/district court: acknowledged slapping as domestic violence but concluded no serious bodily injury and declined presumption.	Remanded: district court made findings that violence occurred but did not explain whether facts constituted a pattern proximate to the proceeding; court must make specific findings on whether the presumption is triggered and, if so, whether it is rebutted.
Omitted portions of stipulated parenting plan	Matthew: district court erred by not including all stipulations or making findings that omitted terms were not in the children’s best interests.	SummerLee/district court: court may reject stipulations if not in children’s best interests.	Remanded: court must either include the stipulated terms or make findings explaining why omitted terms are not in the children’s best interests.

Key Cases Cited

Dickson v. Dickson, 912 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 2018) (deferential "clearly erroneous" standard for custody awards)
Cox v. Cox, 613 N.W.2d 516 (N.D. 2000) (court must consider statutory best-interest factors; findings should be specific enough to explain factual basis)
Dronen v. Dronen, 764 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility in custody disputes)
Gietzen v. Gabel, 718 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 2006) (district court must make specific findings when addressing domestic-violence presumption)
Mowan v. Berg, 862 N.W.2d 523 (N.D. 2015) (findings should be sufficiently detailed to allow appellate review)
Tiokasin v. Haas, 370 N.W.2d 559 (N.D. 1985) (court not bound by custody stipulations if contrary to child's best interests)
Zeller v. Zeller, 640 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 2002) (court may reject stipulation not in child's best interests)
Frith v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 845 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 2014) (issues inadequately briefed when unsupported by authority)
State v. Dockter, 932 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 2019) (purpose of appeal is to review district court action)