Court Opinion

ID: 9514117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:32.532321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:12.005843
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 38] I would affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
[¶ 39] I believe that the findings of the district court are supported by the record and that it appropriately analyzed the four Stout-Hawkinson factors. Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 34, 560 N.W.2d 903; Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶ 9, 591 N.W.2d 144.
[¶ 40] Although the majority says that Candice Valnes’s desire to join her new husband dominates under the facts of this case, I do not understand the majority to say that a custodial parent’s stated desire to join a new spouse would automatically result in approval for a move to another state, regardless of the facts that might be found under any of the four factors.
[¶ 41] There is evidence here upon which another fact-finder may have found willful interference with visitation. But the finding of the district court is permitted by the evidence. If there is, in fact, interference in the future, the district court can take appropriate action, which could include a change of custody.
[¶ 42] DALE V. SANDSTROM