Opinion ID: 1668965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: tender years doctrine

Text: Finally, we are concerned the trial court's decision may have been based at least in part on the tender years doctrine, a doctrine which has been repealed in North Dakota. See NDCC § 30-10-06 (repealed 1973); e.g., Odegard v. Odegard, 259 N.W.2d 484 (N.D.1977). The findings of fact include the following finding: Quinta shall have actual physical custody of Mary, Thomas and Michele because they need to be raised by their mother. They are of such tender years that it is likely that they do not understand their Grandfather's dogma and hopefully they will not be adversely affected at this time in their lives. Although the mere mention of tender years is not cause for reversal, we are uneasy that it is preceded by the finding [the children] need to be raised by their mother. The role of primary caretaker is gender neutral on its face. Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621, 625 (N.D.1986) (Levine, J., dissenting). Notwithstanding the fact Quinta has been the primary caretaker, this is not the only consideration to be weighed in determining the best interests of the children. E.g., Gross v. Gross, 287 N.W.2d 457, 461 (N.D.1979); see also Branson v. Branson, 411 N.W.2d 395 (N.D.1987) (primary caretaker not awarded custody). For these reasons, we reverse the district court and award physical custody of all five children to their father, Joel. This reversal necessitates changes be made in visitation and child support. We remand for these determinations. MESCHKE, J., and WILLIAM M. BEEDE, Surrogate Judge, concur. LEVINE, J., concurs in the result. WILLIAM M. BEEDE, Surrogate Judge, sitting in place of SANDSTROM, J., disqualified.