Court Opinion

ID: 9519348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:14:41.842625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:18.304270
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
dissenting.
This case presents for the first time the application of NDCC § 14-05-22(3), the amended statute that the abused-women’s advocates so ardently sought as the means to confront the serious societal problem of domestic violence and to minimize its impact on children. I am afraid, by affirming the trial court’s misapplication of this law, we undermine the purpose of the amendment and weaken the legislative resolve. I therefore dissent.
One of the reasons for the amendment, which added a statutory presumption against awarding custody to the perpetrator of domestic violence, was the failure of judges to treat seriously allegations of domestic violence. At least, the perception was that the pre-amended version of the statute was ignored. See Testimony of Dena Filler, Executive Director, Domestic Violence Crisis Center, Minot; Bonnie Pala-cek, North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services Coalition Against Sexual Assault in North Dakota, and comments of Representative Scherber and Representative Peterson re judges not taking seriously evidence of domestic violence. Minutes of House Committee on Human Services & Veterans Affairs Hearing on S.B. 2355, Mar. 4, 1991 (enacted as 1991 S.L. ch. 148) (hereinafter, “Minutes”). Another reason was to acknowledge that the perpetrator of family violence is ordinarily not a proper person to have custody of children. See House Concurrent Resolution 172, which was passed unanimously by the United States House of Representatives September 27, 1990, and United States Senate October 25, 1990 and is included in Minutes. The Resolution - expresses Congress’ approval of legislation like NDCC § 14-05-22(3) because “state courts have often failed to recognize the detrimental effects *514of having as a custodial parent an individual who physically abuses his or her spouse.... ”
The trial court, after finding the existence of domestic violence, followed the statute and recognized the rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to the perpetrator of domestic violence was not in the best interests of the children. So far, so good. But then, I believe, the trial court clearly stumbled. The Judge said that custody should be given to the perpetrator because “[n]one of the violence was directed at Trista and Kristofer. The presumption has been rebutted by ample evidence in that regard.” In one fell swoop, the trial court denuded the statute of its good intent to put to rest, once and for all, the failure of courts to recognize that the abuse of one parent by another, even in the absence of physical abuse to the children, has serious detrimental effects on the children nonetheless and must not be either underestimated or worse, explained away. And that underestimation and rationalization are exactly what the trial court engaged in here. What good is a statutory presumption that is based on the legislature’s recognition of the devastating effect on the entire family of domestic violence perpetrated against any family member, if that presumption may be overcome by a finding that the family violence does not include beating the children? That really is a ludicrous reading of a well-intentioned statute and it gives us a ludicrous, and pathetic, result insofar as it condones domestic violence that is not directly aimed at the children. It turns the statute on its head while thumbing our nose at the legislature.
The legislative history refers to Dizayee v. Dizayee, 414 N.W.2d 606 (N.D.Ct.App.1987) [although it garbles the name], a case cited and relied upon by the majority, as an example of the bench’s insensitivity to and ignorance of the dynamics of domestic violence. See Testimony of Bonnie Palacek, Minutes. In Dizayee, custody was awarded to the father. While the opinion by the court of appeals is cryptic, the record reveals evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by the father upon the mother in the presence of the child. On December 30, 1987, this court, in a split decision, denied the mother’s petition for review. Thereafter, Ms. Palacek and others approached the legislature and succeeded in obtaining the enactment of an amendment which provided for a presumption to protect the victims of domestic violence, in particular, the children of the perpetrator. As Palacek put it in her remarks to the House Committee on Human Services and Veterans Affairs:
“SB 2355 would ... create a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that the parent with the history of violence is not a fit parent, or at least that some restrictions should be placed on visitation and/or custody to take that propensity toward violence into account. Right now the burden of proof falls on the victim, who must prove that the violence toward her has also had an effect on her children.”
Yet, in this case, the trial judge, ignoring any propensity of the perpetrator toward violence, took the burden of proof that the legislature had removed from the shoulders of the victim of abuse and dropped it squarely back on. So much for Senator Yockim’s statement of intent that “This bill really seeks to place the burden on the abusive spouse.” Minutes. The trial court subverted the legislature’s determinations that violence in a family has a bad effect on the children of that family whether or not the children have been directly assaulted and that courts must take that bad effect into account. See generally Minutes. In finding that the presumption was overcome by evidence that the children themselves were not physically assaulted, the trial court misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the statute.
However, the majority apparently views the judge’s other reasons for awarding custody to the perpetrator as somehow remedying or minimizing the egregiousness of the erroneous finding of no violence against the children. But I really don’t believe that they do. Nor do I believe that the trial court intended these other findings to overcome the presumption. At least, I am not sure enough to blithely affirm its *515decision. I believe the trial court found first that the presumption had been overcome by virtue of the fact that no violence was directed at Trista and Kristofer. After making that telling finding, the trial court then evaluated the statutory factors that trial courts weigh in making custody determinations under NDCC § 14-09-06.2, including factors that showed that the custody arrangement best protects the child “who is the victim of domestic violence from any further harm.” See NDCC § 14-09-06.2(j). So, the trial judge found that “Charles is employed and can provide for their needs”, which is a factor listed in NDCC § 14-09-06.2(c); “Charles has a more stable environment,” which is a factor in NDCC § 14-09-06.2(d); “more love and affection between Charles and the children than between Wanda and the children,” a factor under NDCC § 14-09-06.-2(a); etc.
Prior to the addition of the statutory presumption, domestic violence was simply one factor among many to be considered under NDCC § 14-09-06.2. See, e.g., Dschaak v. Dschaak, 479 N.W.2d 484 (N.D.1992). We know the legislature does not do idle acts. Consequently, the new statutory presumption must be interpreted as giving domestic violence more weight in custody disputes than the other statutory factors. It also must follow, that the presumption (and the legislative intent fueling it) must not be so trivialized that it can be overcome simply by evidence of other statutory factors weighed in favor of the perpetrator because if that were the case, the presumption would add nothing to the resolution of custody disputes. Not only would this belie the legislative aversion to doing idle acts but it would contradict our customary approach of giving meaning to every word in a statute. So, I believe the majority seriously undermines, indeed, controverts, the legislature’s intent in creating the presumption, when the majority says that domestic violence is but one factor to be considered along with other statutory factors. In effect, the majority has repealed the enactment of the statutory presumption.
I simply am not sure what the trial court would have done had it been correctly informed of the purpose and meaning of the amended statute. It could not and, therefore, I assume, would not have found any ameliorating effect from the fact that there was no violence against the children. It should, in light of the presumption, give more weight to domestic violence than it gives to other statutory factors. Of course, this dissent ignores entirely my position on the primary caretaker because I do not want to stir up the already rough waters of domestic violence and how the statutes addressing that serious subject should be applied in custody determinations.
I would reverse this case and remand it to the trial judge with a simple instruction to do it over and do it right. I would request that he apply the statute in the way it was intended by the legislature. Domestic violence is not just one factor among many to be considered. It is the only factor blessed by a presumption. The fact that Charles did not physically abuse the children does not overcome the statutory presumption that it is not in these children’s best interests to have Charles, with his propensity for violence, as their custodian. Indeed, in my view, the fact that Charles directed his physical abuse exclusively at his wife is irrelevant. It is to protect the children from the ravages of domestic violence committed against any family member that this statute is directed.
I respectfully dissent.