Title: Goldade-Jose v. Jose, et al.
Citation: 2022 ND 33
Docket Number: 20210231
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: February 18, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 33 Kim Goldade-Jose nka Kim Austin, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Gino Jose, Defendant and Appellee and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest No. 20210231 Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Theresa L. Kellington, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief. Ashley R. Heitkamp, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee; submitted on brief. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT FEBRUARY 18, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 1 Goldade-Jose v. Jose, et al. No. 20210231 Per Curiam. [¶1] Kim Goldade-Jose, n/k/a Kim Austin, appeals from a district court order denying her request to remove the supervision requirement for her parenting time. She argues the court clearly erred in denying her request because she demonstrated a year of sobriety as required by the amended judgment. The court’s decision on parenting time is a finding of fact and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Lerfald v. Lerfald, 2021 ND 150, ¶ 7, 963 N.W.2d 244. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Id. [¶2] The district court’s denial of Austin’s parenting time request was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, evidence in the record supports the denial and, after a review of the entire record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶1] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte