Court Opinion

ID: 9818123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:21:14.07318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:16.171480
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 18] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 19] I do not agree the district court’s findings on material change of circumstances were clearly erroneous. Nor do I agree that the district court’s findings on the best interest factors were inadequate for us to perform our appellate function.
I
[¶ 20] A district court’s decision to modify parenting time is a finding of fact, which this Court will not reverse on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Majority opinion at ¶ 6.
“The district court’s decision to modify parenting time is a finding of fact, which this Court will not reverse on appeál unless clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, upon review of the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.”
Id. at ¶ 6 (citations omitted).
[¶ 21] Here, the majority attacks this dissent and reweighs the evidence on the way to concluding the district court’s findings on material change of circumstances were wrong. Majority opinion at ¶ ¶ 12-13 . (“[W]e are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.”); and at ¶ 15 (“While Capes would be wise to heed the district court’s admonition to better accommodate Novak’s parenting time, we conclude the district court’s decision to modify parenting time under these facts and circumstances is clearly erroneous.”).
[¶ 22] The district court found a material change in circumstances occurred since the judgment, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, that Capes was alienating the children from her. Alienation of a child’s affections is, a recognized basis for establishing a material change of circumstances. Krueger v. Tran, 2012 ND 227, ¶ 14, 822 N.W.2d 44 (“A material change in circumstances can exist when one parent attempts to alienate a child’s affection for the other parent, when parents are openly hostile towards each other and that hostility negatively affects the child, or when the non-custodial parent’s situation improves accompanied by a general decline,in the child’s condition with the other parent over the same time period.”).
[¶ 23] The court found that Capes was openly hostile to Novak and that hostility is negatively impacting the children. The court also found Capes demonstrates a need to be rigid and in total control of the children’s lives and schedules, and that he disregards any input from Novak. The court found this was demonstrated when Capes unilaterally fired the children’s daycare provider and hired his sister to provide daycare for the children in his home, relying on his father to provide care when his sister is unavailable. The court found this represented a reduction in valuable parenting time and contact between Novak and her children, to the detriment of the children.
*454[¶ 24] The district court further found Capes engaged in other behaviors aimed at discouraging Novak’s relationship with her children, and that Capes demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to facilitate and encourage a close relationship. In its order, the court listed specific examples in which Capes demonstrated rigidity and a lack of flexibility in accommodating No-vak’s parenting time and requests for rescheduling parenting time. Evidence also exists of an altercation between Capes and Novak’s current husband, which led to Capes seeking a disorderly conduct restraining order against him. However, he was not granted a permanent restraining order because the court found Novak’s husband’s testimony more credible.
[¶ 25] Applying our clearly erroneous standard of review, evidence supports the district court’s findings. Although a very close case, upon my own review of that evidence, I am not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake was made.
II
[¶26] The majority also concludes the district court failed to make any findings on the best-interest factors and states I am wrong to suggest otherwise. Majority opinion at ¶ 13 (“Additionally, contrary to the dissenting opinion, there is no evidence that Capes’ hostility has negatively affected the children.”). I again respectfully disagree.
[¶ 27] While sparse, the district court found Capes is openly hostile to Novak and the hostility is negatively impacting the children. The court found the children were having difficulty being away from their mother and struggled with being separated from Novak after her parenting time. The court found there was no reason for the children to have suffered this kind of “separation anxiety” and it was in the children’s best interest that they be allowed more parenting time with Novak and that Capes’ control of parenting time be limited. The court also found that since being awarded primary residential responsibility, Capes interfered with No-vak’s parenting time and, in an attempt to eliminate the behavior, the court granted Novak’s motion to amend parenting time. The court cautioned Capes that continued interference with Novak’s parenting time may result in Novak being awarded pri-mai'y residential responsibility.
[¶28] The evidence shows Capes had an altercation with Novak’s husband and the children witnessed it. There was testimony regarding the negative impact of the parenting time schedule on the children and the difficulties that the children are having as a result, including having to pry one child out of the house with Novak carrying him, kicking and screaming, and taking him to Capes. Novak testified that the children’s demeanor change when they know there will be a transition, that one child becomes very anxious and that the children get upset at the end of Novak’s parenting time.
[¶ 29] Based on this record, the district court’s findings are minimally adequate and evidence supports the court’s findings that the revised parenting time schedule is in the children’s best interest. To the extent the findings are inadequate, a remand to the district court would be the appropriate result rather than this Court subsuming the fact-finding role and render our judgment in place of the district court.
[¶ 30] LISA FAIR McEVERS, J., concurs.