Heck v. Reed

North Dakota Supreme Court
529 N.W.2d 155 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under North Dakota law, the statutory presumption against awarding child custody to a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of compelling circumstances demonstrating that the best interests of the child require placing custody with the perpetrator. Simply weighing standard best-interest factors in the perpetrator's favor is insufficient to overcome this presumption.

Facts:

Cristie Reed and Shane Heck were in a tumultuous, unmarried relationship from 1989 to 1992.
They had two children together: Shana, born in 1991, and Steven, born in 1992.
During their relationship, Shane Heck perpetrated multiple acts of domestic violence against Cristie Reed, including pulling her hair, punching her in the face, and severely twisting her ankle.
After the couple separated permanently, their daughter Shana remained with Heck, while their infant son Steven lived with Reed.
The couple's son, Steven, was diagnosed with asthma.
Cristie Reed is a smoker and has smoked in the presence of the children.

Procedural Posture:

Shane Heck filed a complaint in district court seeking sole custody of the parties' two children.
Cristie Reed filed a counter-petition, also seeking sole custody.
The district court (trial court) conducted a hearing and found that Shane Heck had perpetrated domestic violence against Cristie Reed.
Despite this finding, the trial court concluded that the statutory presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator was rebutted by other factors.
The district court entered a judgment awarding sole physical and legal custody of both children to Shane Heck.
Cristie Reed, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota; Shane Heck is the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court misapply North Dakota's domestic violence statute by finding that the rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence is overcome by weighing standard best-interest factors, such as the perpetrator's stability or the other parent's smoking habit, rather than by clear and convincing evidence of compelling circumstances requiring the perpetrator's custody?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Levine

Yes. A trial court misapplies the statute by using standard best-interest factors to rebut the presumption; the presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of compelling circumstances showing the child's best interests require the perpetrator be the custodial parent. The legislature's 1993 amendment, which added the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard and the word 'require,' was a direct response to the ruling in Schestler and was intended to create a higher burden for the perpetrating parent. This standard is not met by simply balancing customary best-interest factors, such as parental stability or a desire to provide for the children, slightly in the perpetrator's favor. The trial court also erred by considering that the violence was not directed at the children, as the statute presumes that any domestic violence in a household is detrimental to a child's best interests. Finally, while the victim-parent's smoking habit is a valid health concern for an asthmatic child, it does not constitute a compelling circumstance sufficient to rebut the strong statutory presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence; the proper remedy is to first order the parent to cease smoking in the child's presence.

Concurring - Chief Justice Vande Walle

I concur in the result. The legislative amendments effectively require that a perpetrator of domestic violence not be awarded custody unless the other parent is unfit. To award custody to the perpetrator, a court would need to detail the failings of the abused parent rather than the virtues of the abuser. I agree that the fact the child was not the direct victim of the violence does not weigh in the perpetrator's favor.

Concurring - Justice Sandstrom

I concur in the result to remand the case for reconsideration. However, I disagree with the majority's imputation of ill motives to the trial judge and its extensive use of outside scholarly articles to establish evidentiary facts not in the record. The majority also improperly trivializes the serious harm of cigarette smoke to an asthmatic child, which could potentially constitute 'physical harm' under the domestic violence statute itself. The record also contains evidence of domestic violence by Cristie Reed against Shane Heck.

Analysis:

This decision significantly elevates the legal weight of domestic violence in North Dakota custody determinations. It transforms the statutory presumption from a mere factor in a balancing test into a formidable barrier that can only be surmounted by an exceptional showing of necessity. By defining what is required to rebut the presumption so narrowly, the court establishes a strong public policy that prioritizes protecting children from the effects of domestic violence over other traditional custody factors. This precedent mandates that lower courts treat domestic violence as a primary, often dispositive, issue, thereby limiting judicial discretion to award custody to an abusive parent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Heck v. Reed (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"