Damron v. DamronDamron v. Damron
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Neumann
[¶ 1] Valerie Damron appealed from an amended judgment granting Millard Shawn Damron’s motion for a change in custody of the parties’ two minor children.
I
[¶ 2] After a ten-year marriage, Valerie and Shawn Damron were divorced in September 2001 under a stipulated divorce decree. They agreed to joint custody of their two minor children, with Valerie Damron receiving primary physical custody of the children subject to reasonable and liberal visitation by Shawn Damron. In September 2002, Shawn Damron moved for a change of custody under
[¶ 3] After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Shawn Damron’s motion for a change of custody, finding:
[Valerie Damron] is engaged in an open homosexual relationship in the home in which she resides with the children. This open homosexual relationship may endanger the children’s emotional health and impair the children’s emotional development. We will not know the answer to either of these questions until the children are older at which time it will be too late. The homosexual relationship of [Valerie Dam-ron] is a relationship which under the existing state of the law can never be a legal relationship. Although there is no question that Valerie is a fit parent, because of the mores of today’s society, because Valerie is engaged in a homosexual relationship in the home in which she resides with the children, and because of the lack of legal recognition of the status of a homosexual relationship, the best interest of the children would be better served by placing custody of the children with [Shawn Damron]. (Quoting and applying Jacobson v. Jacobson, 314 N.W.2d 78, 79 (N.D.1981)).
It is not the function of the court to use these children as the tool of enlightenment to convince society of the error of its beliefs. Rather, the function of the court in matters of child custody is to look solely to the best interest of the particular children in the case before the Court. (Quoting and applying Johnson v. Schlotman, 502 N.W.2d 831 (N.D.1993)). This Court cannot modify a pri- or custody order within two years following the date of entry of an order unless there is a finding that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the children and primarily that the children’s present environment may endanger the children’s physical or emotional health, or impair the children’s emotional development. The modification of the judgment by transferring primary physical care, custody and control from Valerie to [Shawn Damron] is necessary to serve the best interests of the children in that the children’s present environment may endanger the children’s emotional health or impair the children’s emotional development.
II
[¶ 4] On appeal, Valerie Damron argues the trial court’s modification of custody was not supported by the evidence and was induced by an erroneous view of the law. She also argues modification of custody based on her sexual orientation violates the federal and state constitutions.
[¶ 5] A trial court’s decision to modify custody is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. In re K.M.G., 2000 ND 50, ¶4, 607 N.W.2d 248. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no evidence to support it, if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made, or if the finding is induced by an erroneous view of the law. Id.
[¶ 6] We have recognized a doctrinal aversion to changing the custody of a happy child who has been living with one parent, and the burden on a noncustodial parent seeking a change of custody is “‘daunting’” and “‘arduous.’” Lovin v. Lovin, 1997 ND 55, ¶¶ 16, 18, 561 N.W.2d 612 (quoting Alvarez v. Carlson, 524 N.W.2d 584, 590 (N.D.1994)). In Lovin, at ¶ 17 (quoting Alvarez, at 589), we said “ ‘Maintaining stability and continuity in the child’s life, without harm to the child, is the most compelling factor when considering a motion for change of custody.’ ”
[¶ 7] Generally, a party seeking to modify an existing custody determination must establish a significant change in circumstances which adversely affects the child and requires a change in custody to further the best interests of the child.
In re K.M.G.,
2000 ND 50, ¶4, 607 N.W.2d 248. However,
[¶ 8]
5. The court may not modify a prior custody order within the two-year period following the date of entry of an order establishing custody unless the court finds the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child and:
a. The persistent and willful denial or interference with visitation;
b. The child’s present environment may endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development; or
c. The primary physical care of the child has changed to the other parent for longer than six months.
[[Image here]]
8. Upon a motion to modify custody under this section, the burden of proof is on the moving party.
[¶ 10] Other courts generally have recognized that, in the absence of evidence of actual or potential harm to the children, a parent’s homosexual relationship, by itself, is not determinative of custody. See S.N.K v. R.L.B., 699 P.2d 875, 878-79 (Alaskal985) (reversing custody modification because no suggestion mother’s homosexual relationship adversely affected child); Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla.Ct.App.2000) (stating court may not consider mother’s sexual orientation in deciding custody unless there is evidence conduct has direct adverse impact on children, and the mere possibility of negative impact on children is not enough); In re Marriage of R.S., 286 Ill.App.3d 1046, 222 Ill.Dec. 498, 677 N.E.2d 1297, 1301-03 (1996) (reversing custody modification based on mother’s homosexual relationship because no evidence children adversely affected by relationship); D.H. v. J.H., 418 N.E.2d 286, 293 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating homosexual relationship standing alone without evidence of any adverse affect upon children does not render homosexual parent unfit as matter of law to have custody); Hassenstab v. Hassenstab, 6 Neb. App. 13, 570 N.W.2d 368, 372-73 (1997) (affirming refusal to modify custody based on mother’s homosexual relationship in absence of evidence child was directly exposed to sexual activity or harmed by relationship); Inscoe v. Inscoe, 121 Ohio App.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 70, 82 (1997) (allowing trial court to consider parent’s sexual orientation only if it has direct adverse impact on children); Fox v. Fox, 904 P.2d 66, 69-70 (Okl.1995) (reversing custody modification based on mother’s homosexual relationship because no evidence relationship adversely affected child); Stroman v. Williams, 291 S.C. 376, 353 S.E.2d 704, 705-06 (Ct.App.1987) (affirming refusal to modify custody based om mother’s homosexual relationship in absence of evidence child’s welfare adversely affected); Van Driel v. Van Driel, 525 N.W.2d 37, 39-40 (S.D.1994) (affirming award of custody to homosexual mother where no evidence of adverse affect on children); Matter of Marriage of Cabalquinto, 100 Wash.2d 325, 669 P.2d 886, 888 (1983) (stating homosexuality in and of itself is not a bar to custody or to reasonable rights of visitation).
[¶11] Under
[¶ 12] Under
[¶ 13] Here, the trial court found Valerie Damron was a fit parent, but effectively ruled that
Jacobson
created a presumption of harm to children living in a lesbian household, and Shawn Damron presented no evidence the children’s present environment may endanger their physical or emotional health or impair their emotional development. There is evidence the children are doing well in Valerie Damron’s custody. Shawn Damron does not dispute the oldest child is doing well physically, academically, and socially, and he has not noticed any adverse impact on the youngest child. Although Shawn Damron testified Valerie Damron’s homosexual relationship “sets the wrong moral character for my children,” he presented no evidence that the relationship was causing actual or potential harm to the children. We hold Shawn Damron failed to meet his burden of proof to justify a change in custody under
[¶ 14] Both Shawn and Valerie Damron seek attorney fees for these proceedings. We conclude neither party is entitled to attorney fees.
[¶ 15] We reverse the amended judgment.
[¶ 16] GERARD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ„ concur. I concur in the result, DALE V. SANDSTROM, J.