1. A parent with primary residential responsibility for a child may not change the primary residence of the child to another state except upon order of the court or with the consent of the other parent, if the other parent has been given parenting time by the decree.
2. A parent with equal residential responsibility for a child may not change the residence of the child to another state except with consent of the other parent or order of the court allowing the move and awarding that parent primary residential responsibility.
3. A court order is not required if the other parent:
a. Has not exercised parenting time for a period of one year; or
b. Has moved to another state and is more than fifty miles [80.47 kilometers] from the residence of the parent with primary residential responsibility. \n 14-09-08. Mutual duty to support children. Parents shall give their children support and education suitable to the child's circumstances. The court may compel either or both of the parents to provide for the support of their children. \n 14-09-08.1. Support payments - Payment to state disbursement unit - Transfer of proceedings for enforcement of decree - Procedures upon failure to pay.
1. In any action in which a court orders that payments for child support be made, the court shall provide in its order that the payments be paid to the state disbursement unit for remittance to the obligee.
2. a. Each party subject to the order shall immediately inform the state disbursement unit of the party's:
(1) Social security number;
(2) Residential and mailing addresses and any change of address;
(3) Telephone number;
(4) Motor vehicle operator's license number;
(5) Employer's name, address, and telephone number;
(6) Electronic mail address; and
(7) Change of any other condition which may affect the proper administration of this chapter.
b. Each order for payment of child support must notify each party of the requirements in subdivision a and require the party to provide the information within ten days from the date of the order or ten days after any change in the information.
c. In any subsequent child support enforcement or modification action between the parties, upon sufficient showing that diligent effort has been made to ascertain the location of a party, the court shall deem due process requirements for notice and service to have been met, with respect to the noticed party, by delivery of written notice to the most recent residential or employer address provided by the noticed party pursuant to this subsection.
d. The requirements of this subsection continue in effect until all child support obligations have been satisfied with respect to each child subject to the order.
3. Whenever there is failure to make the payments as required, the clerk of court, upon request of the obligee or any employee of the child support agency, shall send notice of the arrears by first-class mail, with affidavit of service, to the person required to make the payments, or request a district judge of the judicial district to issue a citation for contempt of court against the person who has failed to make the payments. The citation may be served on that person by first-class mail with affidavit of service to the person's last-known address.\n\n Page No. 5
4. The court of its own motion or on motion of the child support agency or the state's attorney of the county of venue, the county of the recipient's residence, or the county of the obligor's residence may cause a support order in the action to be transcribed and filed with the clerk of the district court of any county in this state in which the obligee or the obligor may reside from time to time. Thereafter, this section applies as if the support order were issued by the district court of the county to which the support order is transcribed. No fee may be charged for transcribing or filing a support order under this section. \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
81
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 (N.D. 1997).
Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 (N.D. 1997).
· cites it 60× “Presently our statute regarding removal, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 (1991), states if the noncustodial parent who has visitation rights does not agree to the removal, the custodial parent must seek a court order.”
Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36 (N.D. 2006).
· cites it 50× “II [¶7] Section 14-09-07, N.D.C.C., provides a custodial parent "may not change the residence of the child to another state except upon order of the court or with the consent of the noncustodial parent, if the noncustodial parent has been given visitation rights by the decree.”
Tibor v. Tibor, 598 N.W.2d 480 (N.D. 1999).
· cites it 29× “After the hearing, the court entered an order denying Zich’s motion on two grounds: (1) Zich is not a parent entitled to custody of the children for purposes of bringing a motion under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 to move the children from this state; and (2) Zich failed to demonstrate…”
Oppegard-Gessler v. Gessler, 2004 ND 141 (N.D. 2004).
· cites it 16× “Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07, Oppegard sought judicial permission to relocate to Baxter with the boys.”
Hanson v. Hanson, 1997 ND 151 (N.D. 1997).
· cites it 20× “The district court further ordered, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07, that Theresa must seek permission from the district court or Randy before she can take the children to Texas in the future.”
Hentz v. Hentz, 2001 ND 69 (N.D. 2001).
· cites it 8× “The judgment prohibited Milli-gan from changing Rick’s residence outside North Dakota, except in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07. [¶ 3] In June 1999, Milligan refused to allow Hentz visitation with their son for a scheduled out-of-state vacation.”
Porter v. Porter, 2006 ND 123 (N.D. 2006).
· cites it 12× “However, notwithstanding Olga Porter's additional visitation, for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 the parties are not joint custodians.”
Ralston v. Ralston, 2003 ND 160 (N.D. 2003).
· cites it 20× “Ralston moved the district court to determine whether Pedersen needed a court order or written consent under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 before she could change their child’s residence.”
Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156 (N.D. 2023).
· cites it 20× ““The purpose of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 is to protect the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights if the custodial parent seeks to move out of state.”
Burich v. Burich, 314 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 1981).
· cites it 10× “He urges this court to interpret Section 14-09-07 of the North Dakota Century Code to require a showing of “exceptional circumstances” by the custodial parent before that parent is allowed to remove the children from the state of residence of the noncustodial parent.”
Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 538 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 1995).
· cites it 8× “On August 31, 1994, Rick moved for contempt proceedings and for a change of custody, and on September 15, 1994, he moved for permission to remove Nicholas from Iowa and return him to Fargo under NDCC section 14-09-07 (1991). Rick was unable to exercise his visitation rights…”
McRae v. Carbno, 404 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987).
· cites it 20× “N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 says only: " Residence of child.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07(1) — 25 cases
Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156 (N.D. 2023).
““The purpose of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 is to protect the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights if the custodial parent seeks to move out of state.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07(2) — 4 cases
Ralston v. Ralston, 2003 ND 160 (N.D. 2003).
“Ralston moved the district court to determine whether Pedersen needed a court order or written consent under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 before she could change their child’s residence.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07(2006) — 1 case
— N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07(3) — 3 cases
Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156 (N.D. 2023).
““The purpose of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 is to protect the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights if the custodial parent seeks to move out of state.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07(3)(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.