Court Opinion

ID: 9691197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:16:18.305466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:12.805791
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree that in custody disputes the “choice between parents is rarely easy for ‘neither the trial court nor this court have the wisdom of Solomon.’ ” However, for this court to exercise whatever wisdom it may possess, it needs adequate factual findings by the trial court to determine whether the custody decision is clearly erroneous. Hust v. Hust, 295 N.W.2d 316 (N.D.1980); DeForest v. DeForest, 228 N.W.2d 919 (N.D.1975). Adequate articulation of the trial court’s findings provides the rationale for its decision and is essential for intelligent judicial review. Minot Daily News v. Holum, 380 N.W.2d 347 (N.D.1986).
In both its oral opinion and written findings, the trial court explained that it considered both Nancy and Greg equally fit to have custody of their children, but that the individual needs of each child would be best fulfilled by splitting custody. This, however, was the extent of the trial court’s “rationale” for splitting custody. For me, it raises more questions than answers, and, in effect, begs the child custody question.
Because splitting custody of young children is problematic, See generally Annot., 98 A.L.R.2d 926, I believe that when it is ordered, the trial court’s findings and conclusions should explicitly, and in a particularized fashion, explain and justify why splitting custody is in the children’s best interests. Cf. Hust v. Hust, supra. While I acknowledge that awarding custody of children is the most difficult of judicial decisions, and have no doubt of the trial court’s sincere effort to promote the children's welfare, under these circumstances, its findings of fact are simply insufficient to support its decision. I would not, therefore, affirm the trial court judgment.
Instead, I believe we should adopt the rule that when equally fit parents seek custody of children too young to express a preference, and one parent has been the primary caretaker of the children,1 custody *625should be awarded to the primary caretaker. See Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn.1985); Garska v. McCoy, 278 S.E.2d 357 (W.Va.1981); see also In Re Maxwell, 8 Ohio App.3d 302, 456 N.E.2d 1218 (1982); Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 48 Or.App. 965, 618 P.2d 465 (1980); Com. Ex. Rel. Jordon v. Jordon, 302 Pa.Super. 421, 448 A.2d 1113 (1982); see generally Chambers, Rethinking the Substantive Rules for Custody Disputes in Divorce, 83 Mich.L. Rev. 477 (1984). I believe that the benefits of the primary caretaker rule far outweigh any baggage.
First, it will generally be in the child’s best interest to be in the primary caretaker’s custody. The intimate interaction of the primary caretaker with the child creates a vital bonding between parent and child. See Pikula, supra; see generally Chambers, supra; Klaff, The Tender Years Doctrine: A Defense, 70 Cal.L.Rev. 335, 344-347 (1982). Preserving this bond is in the child’s best interest and thus argues strongly in favor of awarding custody to the primary caretaker. Pikula, supra.
Second, continuity of care with the primary caretaker is the most objective, and perhaps the only predictor of a child’s welfare about which there is agreement and which can be competently evaluated by judges. See Pikula, supra; see generally Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law & Contemp.Probs., Summer 1975, at 226. Adopting the primary caretaker rule will inject a measure of needed certainty into custody disputes. Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra.
Third, the primary caretaker rule will benefit the negotiation process between divorcing parents. By virtue of the caretaking function, the primary caretaker is likely to be closest to the child, and thus generally will be substantially more distressed by the loss of custody than the other parent. Garska v. McCoy, supra. Consequently, because primary caretakers have the most at stake in custody disputes, they are likely to make the most concessions regarding alimony, support and property matters, especially when the other parent uses the issue of custody as a coercive bargaining weapon. The primary caretaker rule will strengthen and protect the primary caretaker’s out-of-court bargaining position. Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra; see generally, Mnookin & Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 Yale L.J. 950 (1979).
Finally, on its face, at least, the primary caretaker rule is gender neutral; it may benefit either parent.2 Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra. In this regard the primary caretaker rule does not run afoul of either NDCC § 14-09-06 or § 14-09-06.1 because it does not presume either the mother or father to be the best custodian.
Under the facts of this case, where the trial court found both Nancy and Greg to be equally fit custodians of children too young to express a preference, custody of both children should be awarded to Nancy, who was undisputedly their primary caretaker.
Another reason for my dissent is my interpretation of the majority view as condoning the trial court’s decision to split custody either to punish Nancy for her lack of cooperation in visitation while she had custody during the separation or to ensure future cooperation. I do not agree with either proposition. The weight of authority is that a custody award should not be used to punish a parent for bad behavior. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, — Pa.Super. *626-, 504 A.2d 350 (1986); see also Houde v. Beckmeyer, 116 N.H. 719, 366 A.2d 504 (1976); Verity v. Verity, 107 A.D.2d 1082, 486 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1985); Gunther v. Gunther, 478 S.W.2d 821 (Ct.Civ.App.Tex.1972); Rowlee v. Rowlee, 211 Va. 689, 179 S.E.2d 461 (1971). The normal means of enforcing a visitation order is by contempt proceedings, Rosenberg, supra, or by modification proceedings. See Lapp v. Lapp, 293 N.W.2d 121 (N.D.1980).
I would reverse and modify the judgment to award custody of both children to Nancy-

. The primary caretaker is the parent who provides the child with daily nurturance, care and support. Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn.1985). For example, the following have been held to be indicia of primary caretaker status: (1) preparing and planning meals; (2) bathing, grooming and dressing; (3) purchasing, cleaning and care of clothing; (4) medical care, including nursing and trips to physicians; (5) arranging for social interaction among peers; (6) arranging alternative care, i.e., babysitting, day-care; (7) putting child to bed at night, waking child in the morning; (8) disciplining child, i.e., teaching general manners and toilet training; (9) educating, i.e., religious, cultural, social, etc.; (10) teaching elementary *625skills, i.e., reading, writing and arithmetic. Garska v. McCoy, 278 S.E.2d 357, 363 (W.Va.1981); see also Chambers, Rethinking the Substantive Rules for Custody Disputes in Divorce, 83 Mich.L.Rev. 477, 538 n. 230 (1984).

. Thus, the primary caretaker rule is distinguishable from the tender years doctrine because the father may be the primary caretaker. See Pikula, supra at 711 n. 2.