Thomas v. Thomas, 937 N.W.2d 554

Matthew and SummerLee Thomas married in 2008 and have two children, H.M.T. and C.M.T.; divorce proceedings began in 2018 and a February 2019 trial produced a judgment awarding joint residential responsibility.
Matthew appealed, challenging the district court’s application of best-interest factors (challenges to factors (a), (c), and (j)) and arguing the court failed to adopt a stipulated parenting plan or explain why any provisions were not in the children’s best interests.
This Court in a prior decision affirmed in part and remanded for clearer findings on factor (j) (the domestic-violence presumption) and for inclusion or specific findings about the stipulated parenting plan.
On remand, the district court found SummerLee slapped Matthew on two occasions in front of the children (May 2017 and April 2018), concluded those were acts of domestic violence but not a pattern triggering the statutory presumption, and incorporated most—but not all—terms of the stipulated parenting plan.
The court omitted a stipulation provision covering the children’s uninsured health-care expenses and did not make findings explaining that omission; Matthew challenged these amended findings.
The Supreme Court affirmed the remanded findings as modified and instructed the district court to amend the judgment to accept the stipulation portion on uninsured health-care expenses (or make findings explaining why not).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether domestic-violence incidents constituted a "pattern" triggering the statutory presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j)	Thomas: evidence shows multiple incidents (a pattern) so presumption should apply and preclude awarding residential responsibility	SummerLee/District Court: only two slap incidents proved; not a pattern within a reasonable proximate time; presumption not triggered	Court: two proved slaps are domestic violence but not a pattern; presumption not triggered; findings not clearly erroneous
Whether the district court erred by not including all terms of the parties’ stipulated parenting plan (specifically uninsured health-care expenses) or by failing to explain why omitted	Thomas: court must adopt stipulation terms or make findings why they are not in children’s best interests; omission of uninsured expenses was error	District Court: not required to adopt stipulation verbatim and may refuse stipulation terms if not in the children’s best interests	Court: court may use its own language but erred by omitting uninsured health-care expense provision without findings; directs district court to amend judgment to accept that portion or make findings

Thomas v. Thomas, 936 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 2019) (prior appeal affirming in part and remanding for additional findings on factor (j) and the stipulated parenting plan)
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 700 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 2005) (requires specific factual findings and conclusions when addressing the domestic-violence presumption)
Dickson v. Dickson, 912 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 2018) (explains clearly erroneous standard of review for custody findings and deference to district court)
Zeller v. Zeller, 640 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 2002) (a court is not bound to accept custody stipulations if they are not in the child’s best interests)
Tiokasin v. Haas, 370 N.W.2d 559 (N.D. 1985) (same principle regarding court discretion over parental stipulations)