Waslaski v. State
2013 ND 64
| N.D. | 2013Background
- 2010 divorce judgment with parenting plan attached; plan provides Stevens has primary residential responsibility for school and education decisions by mother.
- Post-divorce, Stevens moved to Glenburn (≈30 miles from Granville); three children enrolled in Glenburn schools; Bachmeier sought to prevent Glenburn enrollment; district court declined ex parte relief.
- Transportation issues and shifting residential arrangements arose; two children in Glenburn, one in Granville; parenting time affected by school changes.
- April 2011 Stevens sought to amend judgment for primary residential responsibility; Bachmeier sought contempt for school change and parenting-time disruption; district court denied Stevens’ motion and did not rule on contempt until hearing.
- At hearing, district court found parenting plan incorporated and Stevens had authority to change schools; and no willful disobedience occurred due to transportation adjustments; contempt denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was contempt proper given incorporation issues? | Bachmeier: plan not incorporated in judgment; contempt cannot be based on unattached terms. | Stevens: plan attached to judgment suffices; explicit language not required. | Contempt not warranted; plan attached suffices and duties are clear. |
| Did the parenting plan empower Stevens to enroll in Glenburn schools? | Bachmeier: plan not in decree, thus no authority to enroll; actions violated order. | Stevens: plan grants residence and education decisions to mother; authority to enroll in district she resides. | Stevens had authority under the plan; no contempt. |
| Is the disputed remarriage/residential provision too vague to support contempt absent the plan? | Bachmeier: judgment’s language requiring sharing residential responsibility is vague and unenforceable for contempt. | Stevens: courts can rely on plan; without plan, vague language still insufficient for contempt. | Judgment language is too vague to support contempt; no willful violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Millang v. Hahn, 582 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 1998) (contempt standard requires clear and satisfactory proof of violation; abuse of discretion reviewed)
- Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2011) (clear and satisfactory proof; willful disobedience required)
- Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (contempt standards and discretionary review guidance)
- Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 2000) (contempt requires willful disobedience of a court order)
- Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (N.D. 1999) (contempt framework and parenting-plan considerations)
- Ronngren v. Beste, 644 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 1992) (must be clear, specific, and unambiguous to support contempt)
- Dickson v. Dickson, 568 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 1997) (joint legal custody language alone is insufficient without defined duties)