33 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Worden v. Wordengreen2 sentences2018"The court cannot award custody to a third party, rather than the natural parent, under a 'best interest of the child' test unless it first determines that 'exceptional circumstances' exist to trigger the best-interest analysis." Worden , 434 N.W.2d 341 , 342. 1998“The court cannot award custody to a third party, rather than the natural parent, under a ‘best interest of the child’ test unless it first determines that ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to trigger the best-interest analysis.” Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341, 342 (N.D.1989). [¶ 7] Intervenors contend courts should “simply apply a ‘best interest’ standard to all custodial cases, regardless of who the parties are.” We have rejected such .arguments since Hust v. Hust, 295 N.W.2d 316 (N.D. 1980). | 2 | 5 |
Wolt v. Woltgreen2 sentences2016“Under the clearly erroneous standard, we do not reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not retry a custody case or substitute our judgment for a district court’s' initial custody decision merely because we might have reached a different result.” Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 23 , 846 N.W.2d 738 (quoting Wolt, 2010 ND 26, ¶ 7 , 778 N.W.2d 786 (quotation marks omitted)). [¶ 15] On the basis of our review, we conclude the district court did not misapply, the law or improperly consider the best-interest factors in making its residential responsibility determination 2016“Under the clearly erroneous standard, we do not reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not retry a custody case or substitute our judgment for a district court’s' initial custody decision merely because we might have reached a different result.” Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 23 , 846 N.W.2d 738 (quoting Wolt, 2010 ND 26, ¶ 7 , 778 N.W.2d 786 (quotation marks omitted)). [¶ 15] On the basis of our review, we conclude the district court did not misapply, the law or improperly consider the best-interest factors in making its residential responsibility determination | 2 | 4 |
Interest of S.R.L.green2 sentences2014However, the court only stated that it “basically agree[d]” with Lucas’s analysis. [¶ 18] As we have explained, although the district court need not make separate findings for each factor, the court’s “findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the court’s decision.” In re S.R.L., 2013 ND 32, ¶ 7 , 827 N.W.2d 324 . 2014However, the court only stated that it “basically agree[d]” with Lucas’s analysis. [¶18] As we have explained, although the district court need not make separate findings for each factor, the court’s “findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the court’s decision.” In re S.R.L. , 2013 ND 32, ¶ 7 , 827 N.W.2d 324 . | 2 | 3 |
Rothberg v. Rothberggreen2 sentences2013See Rothberg v. Rothberg, 2006 ND 65, ¶ 14 , 711 N.W.2d 219 . [¶ 8] In its decision awarding primary residential • responsibility for the parties’ child to Shannon Dieterle, the district court did not cite N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06,2(1) or specifically refer by name to the best-interest factors. 2013See Rothberg v. Rothberg, 2006 ND 65, ¶ 14 , 711 N.W.2d 219 . [¶ 8] In its decision awarding primary residential • responsibility for the parties’ child to Shannon Dieterle, the district court did not cite N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06,2(1) or specifically refer by name to the best-interest factors. | 2 | 2 |
McAdams v. McAdamsgreen2 sentences2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶ 17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation.” McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt, 2010 ND 2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation .” McAdams v. McAdams , 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt , 2010 N | 2 | 2 |
In Interest of EJHgreen2 sentences1997In re E.J.H., 546 N.W.2d 361, 364 (N.D.1996). [¶ 8] A trial court’s custody determinations are treated as findings of fact, which we do not set aside unless clearly erroneous. 1997In re E.J.H. , 546 N.W.2d 361, 364 (N.D. 1996). [¶8] A trial court's custody determinations are treated as findings of fact, which we do not set aside unless clearly erroneous. | 2 | 2 |
Niffenegger v. LaFromboisegreen2 sentences2014However, the court only stated that it “basically agree[d]” with Lucas’s analysis. [¶ 18] As we have explained, although the district court need not make separate findings for each factor, the court’s “findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the court’s decision.” In re S.R.L., 2013 ND 32, ¶ 7 , 827 N.W.2d 324 . 2014However, the court only stated that it “basically agree[d]” with Lucas’s analysis. [¶18] As we have explained, although the district court need not make separate findings for each factor, the court’s “findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the court’s decision.” In re S.R.L. , 2013 ND 32, ¶ 7 , 827 N.W.2d 324 . | 1 | 2 |
Hust v. Hustgreen2 sentences2003Id. *593 See Hust v. Hust, 295 N.W.2d 316, 319 (N.D.1980). 1998“The court cannot award custody to a third party, rather than the natural parent, under a ‘best interest of the child’ test unless it first determines that ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to trigger the best-interest analysis.” Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341, 342 (N.D.1989). [¶ 7] Intervenors contend courts should “simply apply a ‘best interest’ standard to all custodial cases, regardless of who the parties are.” We have rejected such .arguments since Hust v. Hust, 295 N.W.2d 316 (N.D. 1980). | 1 | 2 |
Tank v. Tankgreen1 sentence2025“This is not the time for the district court to judge whether it would decide the best-interest factors in favor of the moving party.” Id. (quoting Solwey, ¶ 20) (emphasis in original); see also Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 12 (“A prima facie case does not require facts which, if proved, would mandate a change of custody as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
Brandt v. Somervillegreen2 sentences2018See Brandt v. Somerville , 2005 ND 35 , ¶ 12, 692 N.W.2d 144 ("trial court's findings should be stated with sufficient specificity to enable reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the trial court's decision"). 2018See Brandt v. Somerville , 2005 ND 35 , ¶ 12, 692 N.W.2d 144 ("trial court's findings should be stated with sufficient specificity to enable reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the trial court's decision"). | 1 | 1 |
Barstad v. Barstadgreen2 sentences2014See Barstad, 499 N.W.2d at 588 (“Thus, the preference is only one factor to consider in a custody decision-”). 2014See Barstad , 499 N.W.2d at 588 (“Thus, the preference is only one factor to consider in a custody decision . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
| Reeves v. Chepulisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schlieve v. Schlieve
neutral
2 sentences2023However, we have also stated, “Although stability is one of the best-interest factors, it is only one of the factors.” Schlieve v. Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 22 , 846 N.W.2d 733 (rejecting argument it was not in the children’s best interests to disrupt the stability established by the interim order). 2023However, we have also stated, “Although stability is one of the best-interest factors, it is only one of the factors.” Schlieve v. Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 22 , 846 N.W.2d 733 (rejecting argument it was not in the children’s best interests to disrupt the stability established by the interim order). | 3 | 2016–2023 |
Solwey v. Solwey
green
2 sentences2025“This is not the time for the district court to judge whether it would decide the best-interest factors in favor of the moving party.” Id. (quoting Solwey, ¶ 20) (emphasis in original); see also Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 12 (“A prima facie case does not require facts which, if proved, would mandate a change of custody as a matter of law. 2021“This is not the time for the district court to judge whether it would decide the best-interest factors in favor of the moving party.” Id. at ¶ 20 (citing Wald v. Holmes, 2013 ND 212, ¶ 5 , 839 N.W.2d 820 ) (emphasis in original). [¶14] Tonya Kerzmann’s affidavit described incidents where Jerry Kerzmann has not attended to the children’s developmental needs and the children have exhibited inappropriate behavior for their ages. | 2 | 2021–2025 |
Peek v. Berning
green
2 sentences2023The best interest factors balance these, at times, conflicting concerns. [¶30] “[W]e have stated that relying on a parent’s primary caretaking pursuant to an interim order might be improper.” Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34, ¶ 10 , 622 N.W.2d 186 . 2023The best interest factors balance these, at times, conflicting concerns. [¶30] “[W]e have stated that relying on a parent’s primary caretaking pursuant to an interim order might be improper.” Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34, ¶ 10 , 622 N.W.2d 186 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Wald v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2021“This is not the time for the district court to judge whether it would decide the best-interest factors in favor of the moving party.” Id. at ¶ 20 (citing Wald v. Holmes, 2013 ND 212, ¶ 5 , 839 N.W.2d 820 ) (emphasis in original). [¶14] Tonya Kerzmann’s affidavit described incidents where Jerry Kerzmann has not attended to the children’s developmental needs and the children have exhibited inappropriate behavior for their ages. 2021“This is not the time for the district court to judge whether it would decide the best-interest factors in favor of the moving party.” Id. at ¶ 20 (citing Wald v. Holmes, 2013 ND 212, ¶ 5 , 839 N.W.2d 820 ) (emphasis in original). [¶14] Tonya Kerzmann’s affidavit described incidents where Jerry Kerzmann has not attended to the children’s developmental needs and the children have exhibited inappropriate behavior for their ages. | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Fonder v. Fonder
green
2 sentences2013Fonder v. Fonder , 2012 ND 228, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 504. [¶7] Angela Dieterle first contends the district court, in its ruling on primary residential responsibility, failed to apply the best-interest factors and made no findings of fact regarding those factors. 2013Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 504 . [¶ 7] Angela Dieterle first contends the district court, in its ruling on primary residential responsibility, failed to apply the best-interest factors and made no findings of fact regarding those factors. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Fonder v. Fonder
green
2 sentences2013Fonder v. Fonder , 2012 ND 228, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 504. [¶7] Angela Dieterle first contends the district court, in its ruling on primary residential responsibility, failed to apply the best-interest factors and made no findings of fact regarding those factors. 2013Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 504 . [¶ 7] Angela Dieterle first contends the district court, in its ruling on primary residential responsibility, failed to apply the best-interest factors and made no findings of fact regarding those factors. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Deyle v. Deyle
green
2 sentences2013Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 5 , 825 N.W.2d 245 . 2013Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 5 , 825 N.W.2d 245 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Loll v. Loll
green
2 sentences2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶ 17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation.” McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt, 2010 ND 2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶ 17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation.” McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt, 2010 ND | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Brown v. Brown
green
2 sentences2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶ 17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation.” McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt, 2010 ND 2012Second, the court did not base its decision on the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Rather, the court appropriately based its primary residential responsibility decision on the best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and this Court’s caselaw addressing situations where a parent has alienated the other parent from their children. [¶ 17] This Court has often said “a parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation.” McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647, 650 (N.D. 1995) (emphasis added); see also Wolt, 2010 ND | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Goter v. Goter
green
2 sentences2003Id. *593 See Hust v. Hust, 295 N.W.2d 316, 319 (N.D.1980). 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Rustad v. Baumgartner
green
2 sentences2025“Moreover, determining parental responsibility is not a mathematical formula by which the factors are added up and the person with the most factors in their favor is awarded residential responsibility.” Id. ¶ 15 (cleaned up). [¶7] “The district court has substantial discretion in making a custody determination, but it must consider all of the best-interest factors.” Rustad v. Baumgartner, 2018 ND 268, ¶ 4 , 920 N.W.2d 465 (citation omitted). 2025“Moreover, determining parental responsibility is not a mathematical formula by which the factors are added up and the person with the most factors in their favor is awarded residential responsibility.” Id. ¶ 15 (cleaned up). [¶7] “The district court has substantial discretion in making a custody determination, but it must consider all of the best-interest factors.” Rustad v. Baumgartner, 2018 ND 268, ¶ 4 , 920 N.W.2d 465 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mairs v. Mairs
green
2 sentences2025Mairs v. Mairs, 2014 ND 132, ¶ 7 , 847 N.W.2d 785 . [¶14] In resolving the parties’ cross-motions, the district court weighed the best- interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and made an original determination of primary residential responsibility. 2025Mairs v. Mairs, 2014 ND 132, ¶ 7 , 847 N.W.2d 785 . [¶14] In resolving the parties’ cross-motions, the district court weighed the best- interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) and made an original determination of primary residential responsibility. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Interest of G.L.
green
1 sentence2021Absent exceptional circumstances the natural parent is entitled to custody of the child even though the third party may be able to offer more amenities. [¶13] In Interest of G.L., the mother moved to terminate a voluntary guardianship over her daughters. 2018 ND 176, ¶¶ 2-3 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Grasser v. Grasser
green
2 sentences2020Zuo v. Wang, 2019 ND 211, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 360 ; Grasser v. Grasser, 2018 ND 85, ¶ 17 , 909 N.W.2d 99 . 2020Zuo v. Wang, 2019 ND 211, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 360 ; Grasser v. Grasser, 2018 ND 85, ¶ 17 , 909 N.W.2d 99 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Yanjun Zuo v. Yuanyuan Wang
neutral
2 sentences2020Zuo v. Wang, 2019 ND 211, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 360 ; Grasser v. Grasser, 2018 ND 85, ¶ 17 , 909 N.W.2d 99 . 2020Zuo v. Wang, 2019 ND 211, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 360 ; Grasser v. Grasser, 2018 ND 85, ¶ 17 , 909 N.W.2d 99 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bertsch v. Bertsch
green
2 sentences2015In modifying parenting time, “the best interests of the child, rather than the wishes or desires of the parents, are paramount.” Bertsch, 2006 ND 31, ¶ 5 , 710 N.W.2d 113 . 2015In modifying parenting time, “the best interests of the child, rather than the wishes or desires of the parents, are paramount.” Bertsch, 2006 ND 31, ¶ 5 , 710 N.W.2d 113 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Martiré v. Martiré
green
1 sentence2014“A district court must consider the best interests of the child in awarding primary residential responsibility, and in doing so must consider all the relevant best-interest factors contained in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1).” Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6 , 822 N.W.2d 450 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Martire v. Martire
green
1 sentence2014“A district court must consider the best interests of the child in awarding primary residential responsibility, and in doing so must consider all the relevant best-interest factors contained in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1).” Martiré, 2012 ND 197, ¶ 6 , 822 N.W.2d 450 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Demers v. Demers
green
2 sentences2007“If the evidence of domestic violence does not rise to the level to trigger the presumption, the court may still consider the evidence as one of the best-interest factors.” DeMers v. DeMers, 2006 ND 142, ¶ 7 , 717 N.W.2d 545 . 2007“If the evidence of domestic violence does not rise to the level to trigger the presumption, the court may still consider the evidence as one of the best-interest factors.” DeMers v. DeMers, 2006 ND 142, ¶ 7 , 717 N.W.2d 545 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Huesers v. Huesers green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ramstad v. Biewer green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Zimmerman v. Zimmerman green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Buchholz v. Buchholz green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.