17 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gravning v. Gravninggreen2 sentences2003"Thus, the primary caretaker rule is distinguishable from the tender years doctrine because the father may be the primary caretaker." Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621 , 625 n. 2 (N.D. 1986) (Levine, J., dissenting). [¶ 46] In this case, the trial court carefully discussed all of the best interests factors and found factors (c) and (f) favored Sharon, in addition to finding Sharon is the primary caretaker of the child. 2003“Thus, the primary caretaker rule is distinguishable from the tender years doctrine because the father may be the primary caretaker.” Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621 , 625 n. 2 (N.D.1986) (Levine, J., dissenting). [¶ 46] In this case, the trial court carefully discussed all of the best interests factors and found factors (c) and (f) favored Sharon, in addition to finding Sharon is the primary caretaker of the child. | 4 | 6 |
Kjelland v. Kjellandgreen2 sentences2001See Kjelland v. Kjelland, 2000 ND 86, ¶ 15 , 609 N.W.2d 100 (noting although the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state, it is a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court). [¶ 24] From its written finding on the best interest factors, it appears the trial court relied on only factors (k) and (g) in ruling Sharon should have custody of Roy. 2001See Kjelland v. Kjelland, 2000 ND 86, ¶ 15 , 609 N.W.2d 100 (noting although the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state, it is a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court). [¶ 24] From its written finding on the best interest factors, it appears the trial court relied on only factors (k) and (g) in ruling Sharon should have custody of Roy. | 2 | 2 |
Schneider v. Livingstongreen2 sentences1999Schneider v. Livingston, 543 N.W.2d 228, 230 (N.D.1996); Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621, 622 (N.D.1986) (stating the primary caretaker rule “inheres in the statutory factors and has not yet been accorded elevated status”). 1999Schneider v. Livingston, 543 N.W.2d 228, 230 (N.D.1996); Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621, 622 (N.D.1986) (stating the primary caretaker rule “inheres in the statutory factors and has not yet been accorded elevated status”). | 2 | 2 |
Dufner v. Dufnergreen2 sentences2007Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 9 , 660 N.W.2d 196 ; see also Dufner v. Dufner, 2002 ND 47, ¶20 , 640 N.W.2d 694 . 2007Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 9 , 660 N.W.2d 196 ; see also Dufner v. Dufner, 2002 ND 47, ¶20 , 640 N.W.2d 694 . | 1 | 1 |
Foreng v. Forenggreen2 sentences1996E.g., Foreng v. Foreng, 509 N.W.2d 38, 40 (N.D.1993). 1996E.g., Foreng v. Foreng, 509 N.W.2d 38, 40 (N.D.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkowgreen1 sentence1989Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 213 (Minn.1988); Legg v. Legg, 169 W.Va. 753 , 289 S.E.2d 504 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Garska v. McCoygreen2 sentences1986Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra. Third, the primary caretaker rule will benefit the negotiation process between divorcing parents. 1986Finally, on its face, at least, the primary caretaker rule is gender neutral; it may benefit either parent. 2 Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra. In this regard the primary caretaker rule does not run afoul of either NDCC § 14-09-06 or § 14-09-06.1 because it does not presume either the mother or father to be the best custodian. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikulared2 sentences1986Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra. Third, the primary caretaker rule will benefit the negotiation process between divorcing parents. 1986Finally, on its face, at least, the primary caretaker rule is gender neutral; it may benefit either parent. 2 Pikula, supra; Garska v. McCoy, supra. In this regard the primary caretaker rule does not run afoul of either NDCC § 14-09-06 or § 14-09-06.1 because it does not presume either the mother or father to be the best custodian. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reeves v. Chepulis
green
2 sentences2002In its judgment the trial court explained it reached its decision because Sandra had been the primary caretaker of the children, and because Sandra was “stable and in a positive job setting and relationship with her children.” [¶8] “Although the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state, it remains a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court in its review of the statutory factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2.” Reeves v. Chepulis , 1999 ND 63, ¶ 17 , 591 N.W.2d 791 . 2002In its judgment the trial court explained it reached its decision because Sandra had been the primary caretaker of the children, and because Sandra was “stable and in a positive job setting and relationship with her children.” [¶8] “Although the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state, it remains a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court in its review of the statutory factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2.” Reeves v. Chepulis , 1999 ND 63, ¶ 17 , 591 N.W.2d 791 . | 3 | 2000–2002 |
Bridgeford v. Sorel
green
1 sentence2023Again, an officer is performing a community caretaking function when “help[ing] a person in possible need of assistance.” Bridgeford, 2019 ND 153, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Schmidt v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences2007Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 9 , 660 N.W.2d 196 ; see also Dufner v. Dufner, 2002 ND 47, ¶20 , 640 N.W.2d 694 . 2007Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 9 , 660 N.W.2d 196 ; see also Dufner v. Dufner, 2002 ND 47, ¶20 , 640 N.W.2d 694 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
DesLauriers v. DesLauriers
green
2 sentences2003Thus, being a child’s primary caretaker does not guarantee a custody award in a divorce action for, while a child’s primary caretaker is a factor for the trial court to consider, “the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state.” DesLauriers v. DesLauriers, 2002 ND 66, ¶ 8 , 642 N.W.2d 892 . [¶ 10] Lauri contends a trial court cannot consider a party’s extended family as a basis for child custody; custody decisions have nothing to do with a child’s bonding with third parties; and the legislative history of factor k shows “the fram ers of this provision were conce 2003Thus, being a child’s primary caretaker does not guarantee a custody award in a divorce action for, while a child’s primary caretaker is a factor for the trial court to consider, “the primary caretaker rule has not been given presumptive status in this state.” DesLauriers v. DesLauriers, 2002 ND 66, ¶ 8 , 642 N.W.2d 892 . [¶ 10] Lauri contends a trial court cannot consider a party’s extended family as a basis for child custody; custody decisions have nothing to do with a child’s bonding with third parties; and the legislative history of factor k shows “the fram ers of this provision were conce | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Houge v. Hogue
green
2 sentences1999The primary caretaker is generally the parent who provides the child with daily nurturance, care and support — the following activities have been held to be indicia of primary caretaker status: “(1) preparing and planning meals; (2) bathing, grooming and dressing; (3) purchasing, cleaning and care of clothing; (4) medical care, including nursing and trips to physicians; (5) arranging for social interaction among peers; (6) arranging alternative care, i.e., babysitting, day-care; (7) putting child to bed at night, waking child in the morning; (8) disciplining child, i.e., teaching general manne 1999The primary caretaker is generally the parent who provides the child with daily nurturance, care and support — the following activities have been held to be indicia of primary caretaker status: “(1) preparing and planning meals; (2) bathing, grooming and dressing; (3) purchasing, cleaning and care of clothing; (4) medical care, including nursing and trips to physicians; (5) arranging for social interaction among peers; (6) arranging alternative care, i.e., babysitting, day-care; (7) putting child to bed at night, waking child in the morning; (8) disciplining child, i.e., teaching general manne | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Von Bank v. Von Bank
green
2 sentences1992In Von Bank v. Von Bank, 443 N.W.2d 618 (N.D.1989), a custody modification proceeding, we rejected the argument that the court "should protect children and their vital relationship with their primary caretaker and adopt the primary caretaker rule." We explained that even if we were to adopt such a rule, it was unnecessary to do so in a modification proceeding because maintaining the stability of the custodial parent-child relationship was already insured and protected by considerations of finality. 1992In Von Bank v. Von Bank, 443 N.W.2d 618 (N.D.1989), a custody modification proceeding, we rejected the argument that the court “should protect children and their vital relationship with their primary caretaker and adopt the primary caretaker rule.” We explained that even if we were to adopt such a rule, it was unnecessary to do so in a modification proceeding because maintaining the stability of the custodial parent-child relationship was already insured and protected by considerations of finality. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Legg v. Legg
neutral
2 sentences1989Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 213 (Minn.1988); Legg v. Legg, 169 W.Va. 753 , 289 S.E.2d 504 (1982). 1989Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 213 (Minn.1988); Legg v. Legg, 169 W.Va. 753 , 289 S.E.2d 504 (1982). | 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.