Court Opinion

ID: 9853474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:26.702177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:49.550217
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with much of the majority’s opinion, especially as it relates to the application of section 14-09-06.2(l)(j) when both parties have committed domestic violence. I write separately to address a concern about passage of time.
In this case the trial court found that the domestic violence committed by Bruce occurred more than five years ago. The majority, relying on Heck v. Reed, 529 N.W.2d 155 (N.D.1995), seems to suggest that the mere passage of time, unless it is combined with treatment or counseling, can never serve to avoid imposition of the statute’s presumption, or help to rebut that presumption. I agree that the passage of a short time, like the two years in Heck, is proof of very little, unless it is combined with convincing evidence of successful treatment. On the other hand, I would find the passage of five years somewhat more convincing proof that a violent person’s behavior may have changed. Longer time periods would be particularly convincing if they were combined with affirmative evidence that no further domestic violence had occurred during that time.
I do not quarrel with the idea that behavior is unlikely to change without some prompting. Experience certainly suggests that is true. But experience also suggests that the motivating factor for change can be many things other than formal treatment or counseling. I would not want to suggest that only treatment or counseling is capable of negating past domestic violence, no matter how long ago it may have been committed.