Martodam v. Martodam

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed an amended divorce judgment awarding Crystal Martodam primary residential responsibility for the parties’ children and denying Jason Martodam’s motions for contempt and to amend the judgment. The court affirmed the residential-responsibility, evidentiary, parenting-investigator, counseling, child-support, and contempt rulings, but held that the district court erred by allowing the children to determine whether to exercise parenting time. The amended judgment was affirmed as modified to strike those provisions.

Holdings

1. Interlocutory orders generally merge into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal from that judgment, but Jason failed to establish prejudice from any alleged errors leading to entry of the interim order.
2. The district court did not clearly err in awarding Crystal primary residential responsibility for the children.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding exhibits or in declining to appoint a parenting investigator or order counseling.
4. A district court may not make a parent's parenting time contingent on the children's unilateral decisions whether to attend; the parenting provisions that delegated control to the children were erroneous and had to be stricken.
5. The district court did not clearly err in using Jason's annual income of approximately $28,800 to calculate child support.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jason's motions for contempt and to amend the amended judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's interim order and related rulings could be reviewed on appeal from the final amended judgment and whether Jason established prejudice from any alleged errors concerning the interim order.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in modifying residential responsibility and awarding Crystal primary residential responsibility.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence, declining to appoint a parenting investigator, or declining to order counseling.
4. Whether the district court erred by allowing the children to decide whether to exercise Jason's parenting time.
5. Whether the district court clearly erred in calculating Jason's child support obligation.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Jason's motions for contempt and to amend the amended judgment.

Disposition

affirmed