Court Opinion

ID: 9853416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:48:17.800205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:47.074752
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring in the result.
I certainly agree with the majority that a trial court’s choice of custody between two fit parents is a “difficult” one. Ordinarily, that difficult choice is obviated by giving appropriate weight to the primary caretaking function which inheres in many of the statutory best-interest factors. Von Bank v. Von Bank, 443 N.W.2d 618 (N.D.1989). On appeal, Darcie argued that she was the primary caretaker and the trial court erred in ignoring that special status. Leslie argued that the evidence established that the parties shared the child caretaking responsibilities and there was no error. The transcript bears out Leslie’s argument.
This is an interesting case. It took two' and one-half hours or so to try. Most of the time was spent on the value and custody of the mobile home. There was expert testimony on that issue, but not on the issue of child custody. The transcript numbers 108 pages from start to finish. Direct examination of Darcie took six pages. The only evidence on why Darcie should receive child custody was:
“Q. Who’s been the primary care giver for your child?
“A. I have.
“Q. Does your husband care for the child?
“A. On his visitation days.
*861“Q. Does your husband visit with the child regularly?
“A. When he can. He says he works a lot, so he doesn’t pick him up on the requested days that he’s supposed to pick him up. He picks him up when he can.”
Darcie failed to establish both that she was the primary caregiver and what in fact that meant. This, therefore, is not a ease about the trial court’s failure to recognize a party’s primary caretaking role.
The trial court was given no insight on what Dareie’s care of her child entañed or what arrangements were necessary for securing in advance and paying babysitters. A trial, after añ, should paint a picture that assists the factfinder. On the other hand, Leslie painted a picture that showed a loving, patient, reasonable father, equañy and actively sharing in the care of his child, who, because of job duties, would often have to cancel visitation at the last minute. If Dar-cie fañed to paint any picture of her care and role for the trial court, Leslie certainly took up the slack. His cross-examination established, in vivid gtimary colors, everything Darcie did badly. Her foul language, her impatience over last-minute changes in visitation, her latching the door to the chüd’s bedroom, were deftly depicted. Presented with little contest, the factfinder did the obvious. It awarded custody to the parent who clearly established that his receipt of custody would be in the best interest of the child.
Having tried the case primarily on the property division issue in the trial court, Darcie’s effort, on appeal, to retry the custody issue was rightly rejected.
I concur in the result.