Court Opinion

ID: 9859388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 21:23:54.811301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:34.909118
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
Although I continue to disagree with the majority in significant ways about the interpretation and application of the domestic violence presumption of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j), see, e.g., Heck v. Reed, 529 N.W.2d 155, 166-67 (N.D.1995) (Sandstrom, J., concurring in the result); Bruner v. Hager, 534 N.W.2d 825, 829 (N.D.1995) (Sandstrom, J., concurring in the result); Krank v. Krank, 541 N.W.2d 714, 719 (N.D.1996) (Sandstrom, J., dissenting); Owan v. Owan, 541 N.W.2d 719, 723 (N.D.1996) (Sandstrom, J., dissenting); Engh v. Jensen, 547 N.W.2d 922 (N.D.1996) (Sandstrom, J., concurring specially), the majority correctly reverses here.
I specifically join in the majority’s application of the term “family or household member.”
Clearly, also, the victim’s “pushing the buttons” of the perpetrator does not justify or excuse domestic violence.
In addition, custodial parents are properly admonished as to the potential consequences of a continuing relationship with the perpetrator of domestic violence.
I concur in the result reached.