Prchal v. Prchal

795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) · North Dakota Supreme Court · March 22, 2011

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order denying Bradley Prchal’s motion to hold Sara Gerdon in contempt and modifying the parties’ parenting-time schedule. The court held that North Dakota law permits either parent to invoke the district court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time and upheld the finding that changed circumstances and the children’s best interests supported the modification. The court also upheld appointment of a parenting coordinator and the order requiring co-parenting counseling.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the contempt motion because Prchal failed to clearly and satisfactorily prove willful and inexcusable disobedience of the parenting-time order.
  2. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22 permits a motion to modify parenting time by the parent with primary residential responsibility; the phrase 'upon request of the other parent' in subsection (2) does not limit the court's continuing jurisdiction or either parent's ability to invoke that jurisdiction.
  3. The district court did not clearly err in modifying the parenting-time schedule because the evidence established a material change in circumstances and supported the finding that modification was in the children's best interests.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a parenting coordinator and ordering the parents to undergo co-parenting counseling and treatment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Prchal's motion to hold Gerdon in contempt for allegedly interfering with his parenting time.
  2. Whether N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22 permits the parent with primary residential responsibility to move to modify the other parent's parenting time.
  3. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding circumstances and best interests sufficient to modify the existing parenting-time schedule.
  4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by appointing a parenting coordinator and ordering the parents to undergo co-parenting counseling and treatment.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (27)

  • Berg v. Berg, 2000 ND 37, ¶ 10, 606 N.W.2d 903(followed)
  • Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 1999 ND 146, ¶ 5, 598 N.W.2d 499(followed)
  • Harger v. Harger, 2002 ND 76, ¶¶ 14-15, 644 N.W.2d 182(followed)
  • Millang v. Hahn, 1998 ND 152, ¶ 7, 582 N.W.2d 665(followed)
  • Helfenstein v. Schutt, 2007 ND 106, ¶¶ 15-18, 735 N.W.2d 410(clarified)
  • Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31, ¶¶ 6-10, 778 N.W.2d 586(followed)
  • Ibach v. Zacher, 2006 ND 244, ¶¶ 8, 10, 724 N.W.2d 165(followed)
  • Hanson v. Hanson, 2005 ND 82, ¶ 20, 695 N.W.2d 205(followed)
  • Kienzle v. Zelensky, 2007 ND 167, ¶ 14, 740 N.W.2d 393(followed)
  • Young v. Young, 2008 ND 55, ¶¶ 14-15, 746 N.W.2d 153(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…