Court Opinion

ID: 9513793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:40:37.399219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:02.335109
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 20] I concur in the result reached by the majority. I understand Justice Mar-ing’s concern that some of the rhetoric of the trial court leads one to conclude this matter was treated as an initial custody determination rather than one of modification of an existing custody order. As the majority opinion notes, we have held that where the initial custodial order was based upon the stipulation of the parties, rather than by consideration of the evidence and court findings, the trial court must consider all relevant evidence in making its decision upon the motion to modify custody. Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 ND 37, ¶22, 640 N.W.2d 38. However, that does not mean the trial court may ignore the two-part analysis required under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6), i.e., first, whether a material change of circumstances exists and, second, if one does exist, whether a change is required in the best interests of the child.
[¶ 21] Although some of the findings of the trial court may lead one to conclude the trial court applied the “best interests” standard as in an initial custodial proceeding, the trial court in citing to the legal authority in its memorandum opinion clearly enunciated the proper legal standard and I read the trial court’s findings in that light.
[¶ 22] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., concur.