Court Opinion

ID: 9513236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:33:07.272918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:47.164246
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in result.
[¶ 17] I agree with the majority that the trial court was entitled to consider this matter as an original custody case. I also agree the two-step analysis, outlined and applied in our many cases such as Johnson v. Schlotman, 502 N.W.2d 831 (N.D.1993), involving a change in custody, is not necessary in an original custody proceeding.
[¶ 18] In so concluding the majority, perhaps inadvertently, appears to relegate “continuity and stability in the custodial relationship” to those cases in which a modification of an existing order is at issue.
[¶ 19] I write separately to emphasize that even in an original proceeding for custody, the best interests and welfare of the child are determined by factors which include the “length of time the child has lived in a stable satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity” and the “permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09—06.2(l)(d), (e). See, e.g., Dinius v. Dinius, 448 N.W.2d 210 (N.D.1989); Landsberger v. Landsberger, 364 N.W.2d 918 (N.D.1985).
[¶ 20] I believe the trial court did consider these factors as well as the other pertinent factors relating to the best interests and welfare of a child in awarding custody.
[¶ 21] I concur in the majority opinion.