Deyle v. Deyle
2012 ND 248, 825 N.W.2d 245 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining the best interests of a child for a residential responsibility award, a court must consider both past stability and the desirability of maintaining future continuity, which allows the court to evaluate the potential impact of a parent's foreseeable future relocation.
Facts:
- Christina Deyle and Eric Deyle were married in 2007 and had two children.
- The parties separated in June 2010 when Eric Deyle moved out of the marital home.
- Christina Deyle remained in the home with the children and was their primary caretaker throughout the separation.
- Eric Deyle stopped making mortgage payments on the marital home, which resulted in a foreclosure action being commenced in December 2011.
- Following the foreclosure, Christina Deyle and the children moved into her parents' home in Milnor, North Dakota.
- Christina Deyle testified about her intent to become a dental hygienist, which created the possibility of a future move for school or work.
- Eric Deyle testified that he intended to remain in the Milnor area.
Procedural Posture:
- Christina Deyle commenced a divorce action in a North Dakota district court (trial court).
- Christina Deyle sought primary residential responsibility, child support, and spousal support.
- Following a trial, the district court awarded primary residential responsibility to Eric Deyle.
- The district court denied Christina Deyle's requests for interim child support and attorney fees.
- Christina Deyle (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court misapply the best interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) by finding that a parent's potential future relocations for education and employment created instability that weighed in favor of granting primary residential responsibility to the other parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Crothers, Justice
No. The district court did not misapply the best interest factors by considering the potential impact of a parent's future relocation. Following a 2009 statutory amendment, the best interest factor concerning stability (N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(d)) now requires courts to conduct both a backward-looking analysis of past environments and a forward-looking analysis of future stability. The amendment combined former factors (d) and (e), explicitly adding consideration of 'the desirability of maintaining continuity in the child’s home and community.' Therefore, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Christina Deyle’s potential relocations for education and employment would be less stable for the children than remaining with Eric Deyle, who planned to stay in the community. The court's findings regarding factors (d), (h), and (m) were supported by the record.
Dissenting - Maring, Justice
Yes. The district court misapplied the best interest factors because its decision was based on unsupported speculation about Christina Deyle's future, improperly prioritizing geography over the established primary caretaker relationship. The trial court's finding that Christina Deyle was likely to move was not supported by the record, as she only testified to a hope of being accepted into a program and a desire to remain in the area. The court ignored that Christina Deyle was the children's undisputed primary caretaker, a crucial aspect of stability that should have been weighed under factor (d). Furthermore, the court failed to properly weigh against Eric Deyle his actions of forcing the family from their home by failing to pay the mortgage and failing to provide financial support, which directly contradicted the finding that he would provide a more stable environment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of North Dakota's amended best-interest-of-the-child factor N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(d), establishing that trial courts must engage in a forward-looking analysis of parental stability. It gives courts significant discretion to weigh a parent's potential future relocation against them, even if that parent has been the primary caretaker. This precedent may disadvantage parents seeking to improve their economic circumstances through education or employment that requires a move, by framing such ambition as a source of instability for the child's life compared to the continuity offered by a parent who remains in the child's current community.
Unlock the full brief for Deyle v. Deyle