Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that R.F., acting as personal representative of E.F.'s estate, had standing to bring a paternity action and seek grandparent visitation. The court concluded that his appointment as personal representative related back to the commencement of the action and that the complaint was properly amended under Rules 15 and 17. The court also held that North Dakota's grandparent-visitation statute does not require an existing grandparent-grandchild relationship and affirmed the visitation award.
Holdings
- R.F. had standing to bring the paternity action because his appointment as personal representative of E.F.'s estate related back to the commencement of the action, and his amended complaint properly clarified his representative capacity.
- The standing requirements for a paternity action under N.D.C.C. § 14-20-37 do not apply to a motion for grandparent visitation under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-05.1; R.F. had standing to seek visitation.
- N.D.C.C. § 14-09-05.1 does not require an existing relationship between the grandparent and child before a court may order visitation.
- The district court's findings that grandparent visitation was in the child's best interests and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship were supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
Questions Presented
- Whether R.F. had standing to maintain a paternity action when he was not yet appointed personal representative of E.F.'s estate when the action was filed but was appointed shortly thereafter and amended the complaint.
- Whether the standing requirements for a paternity action under N.D.C.C. § 14-20-37 apply to a motion for grandparent visitation under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-05.1.
- Whether N.D.C.C. § 14-09-05.1 requires an existing relationship between a grandparent and child before visitation may be ordered.
- Whether the district court's findings that visitation was in the child's best interests and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship were clearly erroneous.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Hagerott v. Morton County Bd. of Comm'rs, 2010 ND 32, ¶ 9, 778 N.W.2d 813(followed)
- B.H. v. K.D., 506 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1993)(distinguished)
- Goodleft v. Gullickson, 556 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1996)(followed)
- Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Duckett v. District of Columbia, 654 A.2d 1288 (D.C. 1995)(followed)
- Brohan v. Volkswagen Mfg. Corp. of America, 97 F.R.D. 46 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)(followed)
- Hutchinson on Behalf of Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Clark v. Clark, 2005 ND 176, ¶ 16, 704 N.W.2d 847(followed)
- Schempp-Cook v. Cook, 455 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1990)(followed)
- Walberg v. Walberg, 2008 ND 92, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 702(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…