Vandal v. Leno, 2014 ND 45

Leno (now Mittleider) and Vandal were never married and had one child, L.V., born in 2011.
Their relationship lasted from 2010 to January 2012, with disputes over alleged abuse and drug use claimed by both sides.
In March 2012, Vandal sought primary residential responsibility; Leno counterclaimed for primary residential responsibility.
The district court issued an ex parte interim order granting Vandal primary residential responsibility due to alleged imminent danger, but vacated it after trial when no exceptional circumstances were shown.
A parenting investigator recommended Vandal receive primary residential responsibility, citing Leno’s alleged prescription drug abuse and other concerns.
In September 2013, after a trial in July 2013, the district court awarded Vandal primary residential responsibility and denied Leno’s motion to reopen the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Best interests factors sufficient to award custody to Vandal?	Vandal argues the factors favor him as the better custodian.	Leno argues several factors should have favored her.	No; court’s findings support Vandal’s primary custody.
Was the domestic violence factor properly applied?	Vandal contends domestic-violence evidence did not trigger presumptions.	Leno argues the evidence supports applying the presumption.	Court found factor (j) neutral; no clear error in applying the presumption.
Did the court abuse discretion in denying record reopening for a later evaluation?	Leno sought to reopen for a chemical-dependency evaluation.	Vandal opposed reopening due to untimeliness and trial scheduling.	No abuse of discretion; reopening denied.
Was the district court’s weight given to the parenting investigator permissible?	Leno argues investigator’s conclusions should drive custody.	Vandal asserts court can weigh but need not follow investigator’s conclusions.	Court did not clearly err in weighing the investigator’s report.

Martiré v. Martiré, 2012 ND 197, 822 N.W.2d 450 (2012) (clear error standard; weight given to best interests factors)
Smith v. Martinez, 2011 ND 132, 800 N.W.2d 304 (2011) (detailed findings required for best-interests assessment)
Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148, 836 N.W.2d 598 (2013) (requires specific, detailed findings on domestic violence factor)
Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26, 778 N.W.2d 786 (2010) (review of credibility; deference to trial court’s credibility assessments)
Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196, 789 N.W.2d 531 (2010) (court not required to adopt investigator’s recommendations)
Leno v. Ehli, 1983 ND 188, 339 N.W.2d 92 (1983) (trial court broad evidentiary discretion)
Steckler v. Steckler, 2013 ND 198, 492 N.W.2d 76 (1992) (trial is a search for truth; discretion in evidence)