Court Opinion

ID: 9843717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:42:30.784043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:53.475869
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 24] I agree with the result reached by the majority. I write separately because the majority states, at ¶ 9, “The primary purpose of visitation is to promote the best interests of the children, not the wishes of the parents,” and refers to visitation as only a “wish” of the noncustodial parent. The majority misstates the public policy of this state as established by the legislature and ignores the constitutional rights of parents.2
I
[¶ 25] Over two decades ago, when faced with the proposition that noncustodial parents should not have a right to visitation, this Court summarized its view of the importance of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights:
The adoption of the theory that the non-custodial parent should have no legally enforceable right of visitation would represent a major shift in policy in this state. The policy that has been followed in this state is in accord with the policy applied by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Marotz v. Marotz, 80 Wis.2d 477, 259 N.W.2d 524 (1977).
“It is a fundamental principle in this state that visitation privileges, like custodial rights, are created to promote the best interests of the child. Neblett v. Neblett, 274 Wis. 574, 571 [sic], 81 N.W.2d 61 (1957). As we stated in Patrick v. Patrick, 17 Wis.2d 434, 439, 117 N.W.2d 256, 259 (1962):
‘Minor children are entitled to the love and companionship of both parents insofar as this is possible and consistent with their welfare.’
For this reason, visitation privileges granted to the non-custodial parent must not be viewed merely as a privilege of that parent, but as a right of the child which is not to be subverted by the custodian.” 80 Wis.2d at 486, 259 N.W.2d at 529-30.
We believe that the theory that the non-custodial parent should have no legally enforceable right of visitation represents such a shift in policy in North Dakota that the question of whether or not it should be adopted should be left to the legislature.
Gardebring v. Rizzo, 269 N.W.2d 104, 110 (N.D.1978). After Gardebring, the North Dakota Legislature agreed with the Court’s view of the importance of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights and adopted N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2), which provides:
After making an award of custody, the court shall, upon request of the noncustodial parent, grant such rights of visitation as will enable the child and the noncustodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship that will be beneficial to the child, unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health.
This Court characterized the legislature’s actions as “consistent with our opinion in *908Gardebring.” Burich v. Burich, 314 N.W.2d 82, 87 (N.D.1981). The language of N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2) has not changed since the Burich case.
[¶ 26] Since Gardebring, this Court has articulated a parent’s right to his or her children in the context of grandparent visitation, custodial parent relocation, initial custody determination, paternity determination, and visitation enforcement. See, e.g., Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, ¶¶ 8, 10, 595 N.W.2d 285 (grandparent visitation); Peterson v. Peterson, 1997 ND 14, ¶ 12, 559 N.W.2d 826 (grandparent visitation); Mansukhani v. Pailing, 318 N.W.2d 748, 750-51 (N.D.1982) (grandparent visitation); Olson v. Olson, 2000 ND 120, ¶ 4, 611 N.W.2d 892 (custodial parent relocation); Hanson v. Hanson, 1997 ND 151, ¶ 10, 567 N.W.2d 216 (custodial parent relocation); Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1999 ND 135, ¶ 13, 596 N.W.2d 332 (custodial parent relocation); Egan v. D.M.G., 317 N.W.2d 115, 119-20 (N.D.1982) (paternity and visitation); K.L.G. v. S.L.N., 2001 ND 33, ¶ 11, 622 N.W.2d 232 (enforcement of visitation); Healy v. Healy, 397 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D.1986); (enforcement of visitation); Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 320 N.W.2d 119, 123 (N.D.1982) (enforcement of visitation).
[¶ 27] Yet often when setting forth the purpose of visitation rights, this Court appears to relegate a noncustodial parent’s interest in visitation to the status of a mere wish or desire. See, e.g., Stoppler v. Stoppler, 2001 ND 148, ¶ 14, 633 N.W.2d 142; Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1999 ND 135, ¶ 13, 596 N.W.2d 332. Any reference to a noncustodial parent’s interest in visitation as a “wish” or “desire” is contrary to this state’s public policy that noncustodial parents have “rights of visitation.” See N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2) (“the court shall, upon request of the noncustodial parent, grant such rights of visitation as will enable the child and the noncustodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship”).
[¶ 28] The reference to noncustodial parents’ visitation rights as “wishes” or “desires” originated in Muraskin v. Muraskin, 336 N.W.2d 332, 336 (N.D.1983). Muraskin involved a lengthy litigation over custody and visitation rights. The mother had moved to Florida following the divorce, and she asked the district court “to modify the summer visitation to allow the visitation to be in her home in Florida, rather than in the Grand Forks area.” Id. at 334. In discussing the district court’s finding that the visitation order should be changed because of the children’s interest in “their heritage and family background,” this Court stated:
If the children were asked to express a wish or desire regarding visitation with divorced parents, the location or relocation of the divorced parent could play a dominant role in the child’s decision if weight is given to the child’s wishes. A divorced parent could relocate to an area of great interest merely to entice the child to express the wish to visit at that location.
Whatever the interrelation or connection visitation or its place of change may have to “interest in heritage” was not established. Neither is it obvious.
In matters pertaining to custody and visitation rights, we are concerned primarily with the best interests of the children and not with the wishes or desires of either parent. Burich v. Burich, 314 N.W.2d 82 (N.D.1981).
Id. at 336. The Court’s citation to Burich supports the statement that when structuring visitation, the Court is guided by the best interests of the child, but the language regarding the “wishes or desires of either parent” is found solely in Muraskin. See Burich, 314 N.W.2d at 86-87; Muraskin, 336 N.W.2d at 336.
*909[¶ 29] Over time, the phrase from Mu-mskin has been altered to the phrase used by the majority, “the primary purpose of visitation is to promote the best interests of the children, not the wishes of the parents.”3 In its current form, the phrase can be read as an attempt to reduce a noncustodial parent’s visitation right to a mere hope or dream. Once the law on a subject is declared by statute, common law cannot operate to modify the rights created by statute. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 1-01-06; In re M.C.H., 2001 ND 205, ¶9, 637 N.W.2d 678; Effertz v. North Dakota Workers’ Comp. Bureau, 481 N.W.2d 223, 225 (N.D.1992). Any attempt to minimize the interest of a noncustodial parent would be in clear conflict with the “rights of visitation” expressed by the legislature. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2).
II
[¶ 30] Not only is a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation grounded in the public policy adopted by our legislature, but both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have stated that a parent’s right to companionship with his or her child is constitutionally protected. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (“the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children”); Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, ¶¶ 8, 10, 595 N.W.2d 285 (Article I, sections 1 and 12, of the North Dakota Constitution secure the right parents have in the “care, custody, and management of their children.”); Peterson v. Peterson, 1997 ND 14, ¶ 12, 559 N.W.2d 826 (“Parental choices about the upbringing of children, like those about marriage and family life, are among those associational rights that the United States Supreme Court has ranked ‘of basic importance in our society,’ and are ‘sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the state’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.’ ” (internal citations omitted)). The Supreme Court has described the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel, at 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49.
[¶ 31] The United States Supreme Court, in Troxel v. Granville, relied upon “extensive precedent” when outlining the fundamental rights of parents to their children. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (citing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)). In Peterson, we relied on some of the same as well as other United States Supreme *910Court cases when describing a parent’s right to his or her children. Peterson, 1997 ND 14, ¶ 12, 559 N.W.2d 826 (citing Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)).
[¶ 32] We have also recognized a parent’s visitation rights with his or her children are not absolute and can be taken away when the child’s best interests would be harmed through further contact with the parent. K.L.G. v. S.L.N., 2001 ND 33, ¶ 11, 622 N.W.2d 232; see also Schiff v. Schiff, 2000 ND 113, ¶ 9, 611 N.W.2d 191 (to justify an onerous restriction on visitation, physical or emotional harm resulting from the visitation must be demonstrated in detail); Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 2000 ND 1, ¶ 21, 603 N.W.2d 896 (denying a noncustodial parent visitation with a child is an onerous restriction, such that physical or emotional harm resulting from the visitation must be demonstrated in detail before it is imposed); Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1999 ND 135, ¶ 13, 596 N.W.2d 332 (the noncustodial parent is deprived of visitation only if visitation is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health); Healy v. Healy, 397 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D.1986) (an order denying visitation must be demonstrated on a standard of proof higher than probable cause). Only in the most egregious situations may a parent’s rights be completely terminated by the State. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44; In re T.K., 2001 ND 127, ¶ 12, 630 N.W.2d 38 (parents’ fundamental rights to their children are not absolute, and parents must provide care to their children that at least satisfies the minimum community standards).
Ill
[¶ 33] When defining visitation rights, we must recognize that noncustodial parents have a constitutionally protected right to a relationship with their children. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000); Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, ¶ 12, 595 N.W.2d 285. The statutorily defined best interests of the child should be used only to decide how the practical aspects of these rights will be balanced to maintain the parent-child relationship, not as a means to define visitation rights as belonging solely to the child. See N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2). We must not trivialize or attempt to erode the constitutionally protected rights of noncustodial parents by continuing to refer to their visitation rights as mere wishes or privileges.
[¶ 34] Dale Sandstrom

. In footnote one, the majority misconstrues the content of this opinion concurring in the result. I have written separately to set forth the constitutional and statutory foundation of a noncustodial parent's visitation rights because the majority fails to recognize the visitation rights of noncustodial parents, refers to the visitation rights of a noncustodial parent as a mere "wish or desire,” and states the right of visitation belongs only to the child. This separate opinion focuses on the constitutional and statutory rights of noncustodial parents and does not examine the "structure of that visitation.”

. See, e.g., McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 ND 176, ¶ 28, 635 N.W.2d 139; Stoppler v. Stoppler, 2001 ND 148, ¶ 14, 633 N.W.2d 142; Tibor v. Tibor, 2001 ND 43, ¶ 8, 623 N.W.2d 12; K.L.G. v. S.L.N., 2001 ND 33, ¶ 11, 622 N.W.2d 232; Johnson v. Johnson, 2000 ND 170, ¶ 24, 617 N.W.2d 97; Schiff v. Schiff, 2000 ND 113, ¶ 9, 611 N.W.2d 191; Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1999 ND 135, ¶ 13, 596 N.W.2d 332; Moilan v. Moilan, 1999 ND 103, ¶ 29, 598 N.W.2d 81; Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695, 698 (N.D.1995).