Court Opinion

ID: 9513828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:41:09.525911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:03.492594
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 48] I agree with much of the analysis in the majority opinion. In particular I would apply that analysis where the parties had joint legal and true joint physical custody. Here, however, as Justice Kaps-ner notes at ¶ 31 of her dissent, the divorce judgment, entered on stipulation of the parties, provided that McNett would be the designated custodian of the child solely for purposes of all other state and federal statutes which require a designation or determination of custody. I believe N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 does require a determination of custody and I would apply the stipulated judgment to that statute and conclude McNett is the custodial parent for purposes of that statute. I therefore would affirm the order of the trial court allowing McNett to change the residence of the child to another state.
[¶ 49] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.