I N T H E S U P R EM E C O U R T

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 122

Mariya Stephens, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Kevin Lee, Defendant and Appellee

and

State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20230381

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the 

Honorable Stacy J. Louser, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Theresa L. Kellington, Bismarck, ND, attorney for plaintiff and appellant.

Christene A. Reierson, Minot, ND, attorney for defendant and appellee.
1

Stephens v. Lee, et al.

No. 20230381

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Mariya Stephens appeals from a district court’s judgment and amended judgment 

denying her motions to relocate and for primary residential responsibility. Mariya Stephens 

alleges the court erred by denying her motion to move out of state, and erred in awarding 

Lee primary residential responsibility. We affirm.

I 

[¶2] Kevin Lee and Mariya Stephens married in February 2017. They have one child, 

A.N.L., born in 2019. Mariya Stephens served in the Air Force when they moved to Minot, 

North Dakota, and separated from the Air Force in November 2022. Lee was not in the Air 

Force when he and Mariya Stephens divorced. The couple stipulated to a divorce, which 

was finalized on December 23, 2020. 

[¶3] Under the divorce judgment Mariya Stephens received primary residential 

responsibility of A.N.L. and Lee received parenting time. Paragraph 67 of the judgment 

states that if Mariya Stephens had a permanent change of duty station A.N.L. would 

relocate with her to maintain consistency. Paragraph 73 of the judgment states if Mariya 

Stephens relocated because of military employment that Lee consents to A.N.L. relocating 

with her. The judgment provided that A.N.L.’s medical information would be accessible 

by either party, that they would communicate with each other, keep “the lines of 

communication open to ensure both parties can participate in the child’s extracurricular 

activities,” are welcome to attend all events without interference from the other parent, and 

to let Lee access A.N.L.’s 529 education savings account. 

[¶4] Lee testified that he and Mariya Stephens co-parented amicably until Mariya 

Stephens started dating Charles Stephens in 2021. Mariya and Charles Stephens married in 

August 2021. They have two children together. Charles Stephens is not a named party, but 

interjected himself into the relationship by making Lee communicate through him about 

A.N.L. 

[¶5] Exhibits provided by Mariya Stephens and Lee, and testimony from Charles 

Stephens, indicated Charles Stephens communicated to Lee, throughout 2022 and early 

2023, that the Stephens family was planning to relocate. In September 2022, Mariya and 
2

Charles Stephens contracted and put down money to build a home in King George, 

Virginia. The Stephens family told Lee that they planned to move and Lee either did not 

respond or replied, via text message, with “sounds good.” Mariya Stephens believed she 

had Lee’s consent to relocate either under the divorce judgment or his text messages and 

emails. On April 27, 2023, Mariya Stephens filed a motion for relocation. Mariya Stephens 

relocated before the district court could act on the motion. 

[¶6] On May 9, 2023, Lee objected to Mariya Stephens’s relocation and requested the 

district court deny her motion to relocate to Virginia. The same day, Lee moved to amend 

the divorce judgment to give him primary residential responsibility for A.N.L. with Mariya 

Stephens having parenting time. Lee also filed a motion for contempt due to Mariya 

Stephens’s alleged violations of the judgment. On May 31, 2023, the district court required 

the Stephens family to return to North Dakota with A.N.L. A hearing on the motion to 

relocate was held on June 13, 2023, with a second hearing on August 8, 2023. 

[¶7] On October 9, 2023, the district court denied Mariya Stephens’s motion to relocate 

because the Stout-Hawkinson factors disfavored relocation. The court awarded Lee primary 

residential responsibility and granted his motion to amend the judgment. The court denied 

Mariya Stephens’s motion to amend the judgment and found the statutory best interest 

factors e, k, and l favored Lee and the remainder were not applicable or favored both 

parties. The court also found Mariya Stephens must give Lee access to A.N.L.’s 529 

education savings account. 

[¶8] In November 2023, the district court amended child support and entered judgment. 

Mariya Stephens timely appealed. 

II 

[¶9] Mariya Stephens argues the district court erred in denying her motion to relocate. 

She argues that she did not need Lee’s consent due to language in the divorce judgment 

and, in the alternative, that Lee consented to the relocation through text messages and 

emails. “A parent with primary residential responsibility for a child may not change the 

primary residence of the child to another state except” when the other parent consents or 

by decree or court order that includes parenting time for the non-relocating parent. 

N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07(1). “The parent moving for permission to relocate has the burden of 

proving by a preponderance of the evidence the move is in the child’s best interests.” 

Larson v. Larson, 2016 ND 76, ¶ 21, 878 N.W.2d 54. 
3

A

[¶10] Mariya Stephens claims the judgment provided her Lee’s consent to move out of 

state. The judgment provides: “[i]f there is a permanent change of duty station, A.N.L. will 

relocate with Mariya [Stephens] to maintain consistency, and Kevin [Lee] would then have 

extended parenting time as arranged between the parties” and “[t]he parties agree that if 

Mariya [Stephens] has to relocate due to her military employment, she has consent to do 

so, and the parties will work out details for a parenting time schedule for Kevin [Lee] if 

that event occurs.” 

[¶11] Our method of reviewing a family law judgment is well established:

“When a stipulation is incorporated into a judgment, ‘the agreement is 

interpreted and enforced as a final judgment and not as a separate contract 

between the parties.’ When the language of a judgment is clear and 

unambiguous, the judgment must be construed to give effect to the 

unambiguous language, but ‘if the language of a judgment is ambiguous, we 

give great weight to a district court’s construction of its own decree,’ unless 

the court misapplies the law in interpreting the judgment.” 

Kienzle v. Selensky, 2007 ND 167, ¶ 10, 740 N.W.2d 393 (cleaned up).

[¶12] Mariya Stephens and the district court discussed her relocation to Virginia:

“The Court: Okay. I’m going to jump forward a little bit to this Virginia 

move. And I’m struggling on that one as well, quite frankly. My 

understanding of your position, and correct me if I’m wrong—

The Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

The Court: Is that because this was a permanent change in station, you did 

not need Mr. Lee’s consent; is that right?

The Witness: No, Ma’am. That’s why we sought his consent prior.”

Because of the admission that her move was not due to the military’s change of her duty 

station the judgment provisions providing Lee’s consent did not apply. The district court 

did not err in concluding the judgment did not provide consent for her to relocate A.N.L. 

out of state.

B

[¶13] Mariya Stephens argues in the alternative that Lee gave her consent to relocate in 

text messages and emails. The standard of review for a motion to relocate requires: 
4

“A district court’s decision on a motion to relocate is a finding of fact, which 

will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. In applying the 

clearly erroneous standard, we will not reweigh evidence, reassess witness 

credibility, retry a custody case, or substitute our judgment for the trial 

court’s decision merely because this Court may have reached a different 

result. This Court also held that a trial court may draw inferences from facts 

presented and may make a finding of fact based upon an inference supported 

by the evidence.” 

Nelson v. Nelson, 2024 ND 31, ¶ 6, 3 N.W.3d 133 (internal citations omitted).

[¶14] The district court found Lee did not consent to Mariya Stephens’s relocation with 

A.N.L. in the fall of 2022. The court also found Mariya Stephens did not provide Lee with 

the date of their relocation until after the Stephens family left North Dakota. The text 

messages and emails Mariya Stephens claims show the parties discussed A.N.L.’s potential 

move did not amount to Lee’s consent to the move. The court did not clearly err in finding 

Lee did not consent to the move. 

III

[¶15] Mariya Stephens claims the district court erred in making its findings under the 

Stout-Hawkinson factors and in denying her motion to relocate A.N.L. out of state. The 

court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 

35.1(a)(2).

IV

[¶16] Mariya Stephens claims the district court erred in making its findings on the 

statutory best interest factors and in granting Lee’s motion to change A.N.L.’s primary 

residential responsibility to Lee. The court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and we 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

V

[¶17] We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and conclude they are either 

without merit or not necessary to our decision.

VI

[¶18] The district court did not misapply the law when concluding the divorce judgment 

did not provide Mariya Stephens with Lee’s consent for her to move A.N.L. out of state, 
5

and did not err by denying her motion and by granting Lee’s motion to change primary 

residential responsibility. We affirm. 

[¶19] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr