Horsted v. Horsted, 2012 ND 24

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed a divorce judgment awarding joint decision-making responsibility, establishing parenting time, and dividing custody investigator fees. The court affirmed the allocation of investigator fees and the amended visitation schedule, but reversed and remanded for additional findings concerning the child’s best interests, domestic violence, dispute resolution, and the basis for the parenting plan.

Holdings

1. A district court must make sufficiently specific findings showing the factual basis for allocating joint decisionmaking responsibility in the child's best interests. The district court's conclusory finding that Christopher's proposed parenting plan furthered the child's best interests was insufficient, requiring reversal and remand for additional findings.
2. When determining whether joint decisionmaking responsibility is in a child's best interests, the court must apply the definition of domestic violence in N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-01, not the different domestic-violence criteria in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j). If domestic violence has occurred and joint decisionmaking is awarded, the court must make written findings supporting that award.
3. An allocation of decisionmaking responsibility is not in the child's best interests unless the order includes a method for resolving disputes when the parents do not agree on an issue. The district court was required on remand to address the dispute-resolution method in its written order.
4. A district court may adopt a party-prepared parenting plan, but its findings must be sufficient to permit understanding and appellate review of the factual basis for the decision. The district court's conclusory best-interests finding was insufficient, requiring remand for additional findings.
5. A district court has broad discretion to determine the weight assigned to a custody investigator's recommendations and is not required to follow those recommendations. The district court did not clearly err by declining to adopt the investigator's recommended supervised and graduated visitation schedule.
6. Modification of visitation requires proof of a material change in circumstances since the prior visitation order and that the modification is in the child's best interests. The district court's amendment of extended summer visitation was not clearly erroneous.
7. When neither party is indigent, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.3(4) permits the district court to assess custody-investigator costs against either or both parties. The equal division of fees was not an abuse of discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court made sufficient findings to support awarding the parties joint decisionmaking responsibility.
2. Whether the district court applied the correct statutory definition of domestic violence when evaluating joint decisionmaking responsibility.
3. Whether the district court adequately addressed a method for resolving disputes between the parents.
4. Whether the district court made sufficient findings to support adoption of Christopher Horsted's proposed parenting plan.
5. Whether the district court clearly erred by declining to follow the custody investigator's recommendations.
6. Whether the amended visitation schedule was clearly erroneous.
7. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dividing custody-investigator fees equally between the parties.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded