Court Opinion

ID: 9513544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:33.298957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:54.143731
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 24] I concur in Parts II, III, and IV of the majority opinion. However, I am of the opinion that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the child custody determination were induced by an erroneous application of factors (d) and (f) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from Part I.
[¶ 25] The trial court found factor (a) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, the love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parents and child, to favor awarding custody to Kyle. In making this finding, the trial court stated:
Both parents love and show affection for their child, KayLee Stoppler, who was born on July 5, 1993. However, the emotional ties existing between KayLee and her mother appear to be stronger at this time than those existing between KayLee and her father.
Anne Summers, the Guardian Ad Li-tem, pointed out in her report that Kay-Lee is much more comfortable being with her mom and that KayLee’s everyday and emotional needs of her life are met by her mom.
Donna Zander, a friend of the Stop-piers, testified that the Defendant was primarily responsible for the care of KayLee and that KayLee usually went to the Defendant for help. Susan Her-zog, a social worker with West Central Human Service Center, has been counseling KayLee concerning the current family situation. According to Ms. Her-zog, KayLee was worried about not being able to live with her mom.
As is evident from this finding, the trial court found a strong relationship existed between KayLee and Kyle. However, the trial court failed to address the impact of this relationship on the stability of Kay-Lee’s environment and the desirability of the continuity of this relationship after the divorce. Therefore, it is my opinion that the trial court incorrectly applied factor (d) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2.
[¶ 26] When applying factor (d), a trial court must examine “[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(d). The majority correctly states that “factor d addresses past stability of environment, including a consideration of place or physical setting, as well as a consideration of the prior family unit and its lifestyle as part of that setting.” However, the majority fails to recognize that the trial court did not consider how the dynamics of the “prior family unit” affected the past stability of KayLee’s environment. The treatise cited by the majority in its discussion of factor (d) recognizes the importance that maintaining the child’s accustomed relationships plays in the stability of the child’s environment. See Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law & Practice § 10.09[1] (2001) (“Important considerations include maintaining continuity and stability in the child’s life, especially in the child’s relationships with parents, siblings and others.”).
[¶ 27] In this case, the trial court did not consider how the relationships between KayLee and Kyle and between KayLee and her half siblings affected the past stability of her environment. Furthermore, the trial court never addressed the “desirability of maintaining continuity” of these relationships after the divorce. Instead, the trial court merely considered the past *154physical setting, i.e., the farm, and the dangers inherent in that setting.
[¶ 28] In the context of an original custody determination, we have said, “[w]hile community stability is a consideration, it is not overriding. It can be outweighed by factors favoring a residence elsewhere. Continuity in a child’s relationship with the closest, nurturing parent is also a very important aspect of stability.” Roen v. Roen, 438 N.W.2d 170, 174 (N.D.1989) (citation omitted); accord Schmaltz v. Schmaltz, 1998 ND 212, ¶ 10, 586 N.W.2d 852 (affirming an award of custody to a father who planned to move the children from the town they had lived in for nine years). Furthermore, it is proper for trial courts to address “the importance of stability and continuity in the lives of the children and the benefits to the children from continuing the children’s relationship with the parent who had cared for them on a daily basis.” See Heggen v. Heggen, 452 N.W.2d 96, 101 (N.D.1990). We have repeatedly recognized that the importance of continuing this relationship is properly addressed under factor (d) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2-. See Kjelland v. Kjelland, 2000 ND 86, ¶ 10, 609 N.W.2d 100 (“Under factors (d) and (e), the trial court acknowledged Tom’s greater stability and commitment to parenting. A party’s commitment to parenting is a valid factor to consider in determining custody.”); Foreng v. Foreng, 509 N.W.2d 38, 40 (N.D.1993) (listing factors (a), (b), (d), and (e) as factors that “bear upon the parties’ parenting ability, emotional disposition and relationship with the child”); Swanston v. Swanston, 502 N.W.2d 506, 509 (N.D.1993) (“The trial court considered favorably the stability and continuity of the children’s relationship with Curtis, [the father,] and the benefits that would flow from continuing that relationship. ‘Established patterns of care and nurture are relevant factors for the trial court to have considered.’ ”). In this case, the trial court erred in its application of factor (d) when it made no inquiry into the benefits that KayLee would receive from continuing her relationship with Kyle, the parent who had cared for her on a daily basis.
[¶ 29] In addition to the original custody determination cases discussed above, our modification of custody eases also illustrate the important role that a child’s relationship with the nurturing parent plays in the stability of the child’s environment. In Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97, 101 (N.D. 1987), we held that the trial court erred in changing custody from the mother to the father. In doing so, we emphasized that the important aspect of “stability” is “the stability of the child’s relationship with the custodial parent.” Id. at 100. We further emphasized that, “[i]t is that continuous and uninterrupted relationship that has been important to the child since the divorce.” Id. at 100-101; accord Blotske v. Leidholm, 487 N.W.2d 607, 611 (N.D.1992) (“It is the continuity of the custodial parent-child relationship that is critical, not the continuity of the stepparent-child relationship.”). We have also stressed the importance of maintaining the continuity of that relationship over the importance of maintaining continuity of the child’s physical setting. For example, in Klose v. Klose, 524 N.W.2d 94, 96 (N.D.1994), the ex-husband brought a motion for change of custody after the ex-wife moved from Jamestown to Bismarck with the children. In support of his motion, the husband argued the children expressed a preference to stay in Jamestown with him. See id. In rejecting this argument we stated, “a child’s preference to remain in a community where his friends and familiar surroundings are located is predictable but generally should not override the important need for the child to maintain a stable relationship with the custodial parent.” Id. at 97. *155Likewise, in the present case, while the trial court could consider KayLee’s prior physical setting, it erred by failing to weigh this consideration against the importance of maintaining continuity in Kay-Lee’s relationship with Kyle.
[¶ 30] Interpreting factor (d) to encompass continuity of a child’s prior parental relationships is not only in accordance with our prior cases, but also, is in accordance with interpretations given to identical factors'by other state courts. As is evident from the majority’s citation of Ireland v. Smith, 451 Mich. 457, 547 N.W.2d 686, 690 (1996), Michigan law provides for a factor identical to factor (d) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.23(d) (West Supp.2001). However, it was factor (e), the permanence of the proposed family home, that was at issue in Ireland, not factor (d). See Ireland, 547 N.W.2d at 689-90. In a recent case, a Michigan Court of Appeals did have the opportunity to directly address the application of section 722.23(d). See Phillips v. Jordan, 241 Mich.App. 17, 614 N.W.2d 183, 189 (2000). In doing so, it recognized the importance of continuity of the parent-child relationship over continuity of the child’s physical setting. See id. ■ (affirming the trial court’s finding that,, while the plaintiff, the child’s custodial parent, had frequently changed residences, “the child’s home was with plaintiff wherever that may be and that parents could not be. punished for having to move”).
[¶ 31] Like Michigan, Alaska law also provides for a factor identical to factor (d) of N.D.C.C. ■§ 14-09-06.2. See Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(5) (Michie 2000). The Alaska Supreme Court has noted that “the criteria of stability and continuity must be considered in light of the facts of each particular case.” McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 421, 426 (Alaska 1995). Thus, in addressing stability and continuity, a trial court can consider the child’s prior physical setting if the facts of the case warrant such .consideration. See, e.g., Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478, 482 (Alaska 1994); Craig v. McBride, 639 P.2d 303, 305 (Alaska 1982). However, under this factor, trial courts “must consider each parent’s respective ability to maintain stable and satisfactory relations between themselves and the child following separation.” McQuade, 901 P.2d at 426 (emphasis added). Therefore, “the fact that the physical location of a child’s home changes may have little or no bearing on the stability of the home.” Craig, 639 P.2d at 308 (Rabinowitz, C.J., concurring).
Continuity and stability for a child come not only from staying in the same house, or going to the same school. Consideration should also be given to social and emotional factors such as who the primary care-giver was for the child and whether the child would be separated from siblings or family members if he was placed with one parent rather than the other.
Rooney v. Rooney, 914 P.2d 212, 217 (Alaska 1996). Under factor (d), “[s]tability is often a function of parental attitude and not of geography.” Craig, 639 P.2d at 308 (Rabinowitz, C.J., concurring).
[¶ 32] In addition to erring in applying factor (d), the trial court also erred in its application of factor (f) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2. In determining the best interests of a child, factor (f) allows a trial court to examine “[t]he moral fitness of the parents.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2©. Our recent cases have indicated that an extramarital affair or adulterous relationship should be given little, if any, weight under this factor unless there is evidence that the affair had an adverse effect on the children. In Foreng, we affirmed an award of custody to a mother who had an extramarital relationship where the trial court *156found that the affair did not have a detrimental impact on the children. 509 N.W.2d at 40. In doing so, we refused to adopt the suggestion “that evidence of extramarital relationships, per se, is an irrefutable indication of moral unfitness.” Id. Likewise, in Gregg v. Gregg, we affirmed a trial court’s finding that an extramarital affair by the mother was not relevant to moral fitness because the children were not affected by it. 1998 ND 204, ¶ 10, 586 N.W.2d 312; see also Schmaltz, 1998 ND 212, ¶ 8, 586 N.W.2d 852 (affirming an award of custody to a father who had an affair after the parties separated but before they were divorced).
[¶ 33] Like factor (d) of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, factor (f) also has a virtually identical counterpart under Michigan law. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.23(f) (West Supp.2001). In interpreting factor (f), the Michigan Supreme Court stated that the critical words of this factor are “fitness of the parties involved.” See Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871, 526 N.W.2d 889, 896 (1994).
Factor f (moral fitness), like all the other statutory factors, relates to a person’s fitness as a parent. To evaluate parental fitness, courts must look to the parent-child relationship and the effect that the conduct at issue will have on that relationship. Thus, the question under factor f is not ‘who is the morally superi- or adult;’ the question concerns the parties’ relative fitness to provide for their child, given the moral disposition of each party as demonstrated by individual conduct.
Id. Thus, the court held that “questionable conduct is relevant to factor f only if it is a type of conduct that necessarily has a significant influence on how one will function as a parent.” Id. (footnote omitted). In reaching this holding, the court reasoned, “to punish infidelity at the risk of jeopardizing a child’s best interests simply contravenes the overriding purpose of the Child Custody Act.” Id.
Extramarital relations are not necessarily a reliable indicator of how one will function within the parent-child relationship. While such conduct certainly has a bearing on one’s spousal fitness, it need not be probative of how one will interact or raise a child. Because of its limited probative value and the significant potential for prejudicially ascribing disproportionate weight to that fact, extramarital conduct, in and of itself, may not be relevant to factor f.
Id. (footnote omitted). Michigan courts have extended this reasoning to apply to unmarried cohabitation, as well as extramarital affairs. See Hilliard v. Schmidt, 231 Mich.App. 316, 586 N.W.2d 263, 267 (1998) (citing Fletcher, 526 N.W.2d at 896); see also Truitt v. Truitt, 172 Mich.App. 38, 431 N.W.2d 454, 458 (1988) (“Standing-alone, unmarried cohabitation is not enough to constitute immorality under the Child Custody Act.”).
[¶ 34] In this case, in applying factor (f), the trial court made no finding that Kyle’s cohabitation with her boyfriend had an adverse effect on KayLee. In fact, the only reference the trial court made to KayLee under factor (f) is the statement “KayLee even knows her mother is seeing another man, who is not her father.” Nowhere did the trial court explain how this conduct related to how Kyle will function as a parent. Rather, the trial court wrongfully presumed that Kyle’s cohabitation with her boyfriend indicated moral unfitness under factor (f). See Foreng, 509 N.W.2d at 40 (refusing to adopt the position “that evidence of extramarital relationships, per se, is an irrefutable indication of moral unfitness”).
[¶ 35] Because I believe the trial court misapplied factors (d) and (f) of N.D.C.C. *157§ 14-09-06.2, I respectfully dissent and would remand for a correct application of the law.
[¶ 36] Mary Muehlen Maring, J.