Court Opinion

ID: 9513396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:35:15.050817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:51.066711
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 31.] I respectfully dissent. I am of the opinion that even the trial court’s amended findings of fact and conclusions of law were induced by an erroneous view of the law, and I am also left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.
[¶ 32.] The trial court in its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for entry of the second amended judgment clearly failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining a motion for change of custody. Therein the trial court concluded there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the original custody order. Once having reached this conclusion, the trial court applied the statutory factors in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 and concluded it would be in the best interests of the child physical custody be changed from her father to her mother. In doing so, the court treated this as if it were an original custody decision once it found a significant change in circumstances. In Ludmg v. Burchill, 514 N.W.2d 674, 675 (N.D.1994) (citations omitted), our Court set forth the applicable legal standard in a change of custody determination:
[T]he trial court first must determine whether a significant change of circumstances has occurred since the prior custody decree, and if so, whether that change so adversely affects the child that it compels or requires a change in custody to foster the child’s best interests.
Having had this correct legal standard called to its attention, the trial court ordered the amendment of its findings of fact and conclusions of law dated February 6, 1998, and the entry of a third amended judgement. The findings of fact, numbers 7 and 19, and conclusion of law II were amended. Specifically the trial court found the “two convictions for DUI or APC, the Defendant’s [sic] continued use of alcohol,2 the Plaintiffs beating of [the child] with a wire brush, and the incident of domestic violence by the Plaintiff against the Defendant” have “so adversely affected [the child] that a change in custody is necessary to foster [the child’s] best interests.”
[¶ 33.] The evidence in the record cited by the trial court to support this finding is that “[the child] was doing poorly in school, regularly complained to her teachers of headaches, and asked to talk with the guidance counselor at school after telling Ms. Garrett about witnessing her father shove her mother up against the wall.” The record, however, is devoid of any evidence of a causal connection between Ramstad’s conduct and the child’s poor school performance or complaints of headaches. There was no expert testimony that Ramstad’s conduct while drinking had a negative effect on the child, or that it interfered with his parenting responsibilities. There was no testimony Ramstad’s drinking interfered with his caring for the child’s emotional, physical, and mental needs, other than he had lost his license to drive for one year. While it is true the child’s school performance was poor during the 1996-97 school year, the uncontroverted evidence was that Ramstad enrolled the child in summer school and her teacher, Debbie Garrett, testified she saw a remarkable improvement in the child in the fall of 1997 as compared to the prior school year. Ms. Garrett also stated in her October 13,1997, affidavit, the child was doing “remarkably well and is a happy, well adjusted little girl.” The child was in Ramstad’s custody during the Fall of 1997.
[¶ 34.] The only adverse effects, therefore, supported by the record were the one incident of domestic abuse against Biewer which resulted in the child talking to a guidance counselor at school and the one incident of *912spanking which resulted in the child’s bruised bottom. These are isolated incidents, and there is no evidence this child suffered from any pattern of abusive conduct. The trial court, in its attempt to apply the proper legal standard, failed to correctly analyze, however, whether the change of circumstances “requires” or “compels” a change of custody “in the context of the recognized overriding benefit in maintaining the stability and continuity of the custodial parent-child relationship.” See Ludwig v. Burchill, 481 N.W.2d 464, 470 (N.D.1992) (Levine, J., specially concurring).
[¶ 35.] I agree with Chief Justice Vande-Walle’s concurrence to the extent that it points out our standard for a change of custody “does not forbid a change of custody absent some catastrophic change of circumstances, rather, it increases the burden of proof necessary to a change of custody in the best interest of the child.” However, I cannot find the evidence in this record to meet this increased burden in light of the significance of the continuous seven-year relationship between Ramstad and his daughter, who was described by her teacher as a “happy, well adjusted little girl” at the time this matter was heard by the trial court. As Justice Levine stated in her special concurrence in Ludwig I, 481 N.W.2d at 469: “It is not every significant change in circumstances that warrants a change in custody.” In Del-zer v. Winn, 491 N.W.2d 741, 744 (N.D.1992), we emphasized the maintenance of custodial stability and continuity “is a very compelling consideration” against which the other best interest factors must be gauged.
[¶36.] In conclusion, although the trial court makes an express finding the change of circumstances in this case so adversely affected the child that a change of custody is required and necessitated, I am left with a firm conviction the court’s original error of law influenced the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law and the third amended judgment because they contain only a recitation of the necessary magic words without a basis in the evidentiary record to support them. Cf. Benson v. Benson, 495 N.W.2d 72, 78 (N.D.1993) (“[A] trial court must specifically state subordinate facts upon which its ultimate factual conclusions rest.”). Something more is required than simply to find a significant change in circumstances, here drinking, justifies a change in custody. I do not agree that merely establishing that a custodial parent drinks inferentially establishes such conduct impairs that parent’s ability to parent and has an adverse effect on the child without some additional evidence to support these findings.
[¶ 37.] I believe the evidence, viewed in its most favorable light, is insufficient as a matter of law to support the trial court’s finding Ramstad’s conduct so adversely affected the child that the presumption in favor of maintaining the custody of a happy child with the custodial parent of over seven years is overcome. See Delzer, 491 N.W.2d at 747 (Levine, J., specially concurring) (stating “Translated into evidentiary language, there is a presumption in favor of maintaining the custody of a happy child with the custodial parent.”). I would reverse the second and third amended judgment.
[¶ 38.] SANDSTROM, J., concurs.

. I agree with the majority the district court meant to refer here to Ramstad and not Biewer.