Maureen Ann Woodward v. George Woodward

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed orders denying Maureen Ann Woodward's requests to modify visitation, granting George Woodward compensatory visitation, ordering parental alienation and psychological evaluations, and holding her in contempt for withholding court-ordered visitation. The court held that the contempt finding was supported by the evidence, the referee's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and the evaluation order was not an abuse of discretion. The court declined to consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal and denied the request for attorney fees because the appeal was not frivolous.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Maureen in contempt for willfully withholding court-ordered visitation.
2. The finding that Maureen nurtured the children's insecurities and fears and thereby undermined their relationship with George was not clearly erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court declined to address Maureen's argument that the best-interests standard, rather than an endangerment standard, governed visitation because the issue was not raised or considered in the district court.
4. The referee did not abuse her discretion by ordering Maureen to undergo parental-alienation and psychological evaluations.
5. George's request for costs and attorney fees under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 was denied because, although the appeal lacked merit, it was not frivolous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the findings supporting contempt were supported by the evidence and whether the contempt orders constituted an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the finding that Maureen's conduct undermined the relationship between George and the children was clearly erroneous.
3. Whether the challenge to the legal standard governing visitation with George's new wife was preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether the order requiring Maureen to undergo parental-alienation and psychological evaluations was an abuse of discretion.
5. Whether George was entitled to attorney fees under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for defending a frivolous appeal.

Disposition

affirmed