Simons by and Through Simons v. Gisvold
1994 WL 384804, 519 N.W.2d 585, 1994 N.D. LEXIS 158 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a psychological parent and a natural parent each seek a court-ordered award of custody, the natural parent's paramount right to custody prevails unless the court finds it in the child's best interest to award custody to the psychological parent to prevent serious harm or detriment to the welfare of the child.
Facts:
- Jessica Simons was born in July 1983.
- Jessica's natural father, Bruce Simons, and natural mother, Joelle Gisvold, divorced in May 1984, with Bruce being awarded custody and Joelle granted liberal visitation.
- In 1986, Bruce married Debra, and the three of them—Bruce, Debra, and Jessica—lived together as a family in Fargo.
- Debra stayed home and cared for Jessica while Bruce worked, effectively becoming Jessica's “psychological parent” for nearly eight years.
- Bruce Simons died of cancer in 1993, leaving no will or other document expressing his preference for Jessica's custody.
- Joelle Gisvold, Jessica's natural mother, maintained a loving, caring relationship with Jessica and exercised her visitation rights.
- Jessica loved both Debra and Joelle, referring to both as “mom.”
Procedural Posture:
- Following Bruce Simons' death, Joelle Gisvold filed a motion in district court, requesting custody of Jessica, alleging Bruce's death constituted a material change in circumstances.
- Debra Simons responded, asserting her entitlement to custody as Jessica's psychological parent.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed and recommended that Jessica's best interests would be served by continuing to live with Debra.
- The district court found both Joelle Gisvold and Debra Simons to be morally fit, capable, and loving parents, able to provide a stable environment.
- The district court awarded custody of Jessica to Joelle Gisvold, concluding that the natural parent has a paramount right unless the child would sustain serious harm or detriment.
- The district court also ordered that each party bear their own attorney fees and costs and did not require Debra to be solely responsible for guardian ad litem fees.
- Debra Simons appealed the district court's custody decision to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, urging that in exceptional circumstances with a "psychological parent," the child's best interests should prevail without preference for a natural parent.
- Debra Simons also appealed the district court's refusal to award Joelle attorney fees or require Debra to pay guardian ad litem fees.
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 natural parent's paramount right to custody prevail over a psychological parent's claim when both are deemed fit, unless the child would suffer serious harm or detriment by being placed with the natural parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Sandstrom, Justice
Yes, a natural parent's paramount right to custody prevails over a psychological parent's claim, even when both are fit, unless the child would suffer serious harm or detriment by being placed with the natural parent. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that it correctly applied the law. The Court reiterated that parents generally have a superior right to custody compared to any other person, though this right is not absolute and can be forfeited by unfitness or abandonment, neither of which applied in this case. Citing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.1, which directs courts to award custody in the child's best interests, the Court clarified that when both a psychological and a natural parent seek custody, the natural parent's paramount right prevails unless the court finds it necessary to award custody to the psychological parent to prevent serious harm or detriment to the child's welfare (citing Patzer v. Glaser, In re Buchholz, Mansukhani v. Pailing, and Hust). The Court distinguished the present case from prior instances where psychological parents gained custody, noting that Jessica had a close relationship and strong bond with her natural mother, and there was no evidence she would suffer serious harm or detriment by being placed with Joelle. Both Joelle and Debra were found to be fit, willing, and able parents. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision regarding attorney fees and costs, affirming that each party should bear their own.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strong legal presumption favoring natural parental rights in custody disputes, even when a deeply bonded "psychological parent" is involved. It establishes a high threshold, requiring demonstrable "serious harm or detriment" to the child's welfare to overcome the natural parent's claim, rather than merely a general finding of the child's "best interests." The ruling limits the circumstances under which a non-parent can gain custody against a fit natural parent, highlighting that a loving relationship with a psychological parent, by itself, is insufficient without evidence of substantial risk if the child is placed with the natural parent.
