Gomm v. Winterfeldt

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s modification of parenting time and denial of Amy Winterfeldt’s request for primary residential responsibility. The Court held that registration of a foreign custody determination is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction to modify that determination under North Dakota’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Court also held that Winterfeldt was not entitled to submit supplemental evidentiary materials or receive an evidentiary hearing because she failed to establish a prima facie case for modification.

Holdings

1. Registration of a foreign custody determination under N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-25 through 14-14.1-37 is separate from and is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction to modify an existing custody determination under N.D.C.C. §§ 14-14.1-12 through 14-14.1-20.
2. The law of the case doctrine did not require the North Dakota district court to hold a hearing on motions pending in Texas, and the district court had no obligation to resolve those foreign proceedings after accepting jurisdiction.
3. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) and N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2), the moving party may file a reply brief but is not entitled to file supplemental evidentiary materials after the opposing party's response.
4. Winterfeldt failed to establish a prima facie case justifying modification of primary residential responsibility and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether North Dakota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the existing foreign custody determination because the determination had not been properly registered in North Dakota.
2. Whether the district court was required to hold a hearing on motions pending in Texas under the law of the case doctrine or because of the relationship between the North Dakota and Texas proceedings.
3. Whether Winterfeldt was entitled to file and have considered supplemental evidentiary materials after Gomm filed his response to her motion to modify primary residential responsibility.
4. Whether Winterfeldt established a prima facie case justifying modification of primary residential responsibility and was therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed