Goetz v. Goetz

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed an order modifying parenting time between Joshua Goetz and Cassandra Goetz. The court affirmed the finding of a material change in circumstances but reversed the modification in part because the district court improperly conducted an in-chambers interview of the child without parental consent and relied on a parenting investigator’s report without notice and an opportunity for cross-examination. The case was remanded for a best-interests analysis without those materials or for a supplemental evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding a material change in circumstances justifying modification of parenting time. Conflict over implementation of a parenting plan, interference with parenting time, unwillingness to accommodate reasonable exchanges, the children's and parent's desire for additional time, and uncertainty in exchange times may support the finding.
2. Under N.D.R.Ct. 8.13(a), a district court may conduct an in chambers interview of a child in a proceeding concerning primary residential responsibility or parenting time only if both parents consent. The district court erred as a matter of law by conducting the interview over Smith's objection.
3. The error in considering the child's in chambers interview was not harmless and required reversal and remand.
4. The district court abused its discretion by relying on the parenting investigator's report at the 2024 hearing without providing notice that it would consider the report and an opportunity for the parties to cross-examine the investigator at that hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding a material change in circumstances justifying modification of parenting time.
2. Whether the district court could conduct an in chambers interview of a child in a parenting-time proceeding without both parents' consent under N.D.R.Ct. 8.13.
3. Whether the district court improperly relied on the child's statements from the in chambers interview in its best-interests analysis.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on a parenting investigator's prior report without notice to the parties and an opportunity to cross-examine the investigator at the 2024 hearing.
5. Whether the errors were harmless.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded