Stout v. Stout
1997 ND 61, 560 N.W.2d 903 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A custodial parent seeking judicial permission to relocate with a child to another state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the move is in the child's best interest. This determination is made by applying a four-factor analysis that considers the well-being of the new family unit, the motives of both parents, and the potential for a realistic alternative visitation schedule.
Facts:
- Julene Stout and James Stout divorced, and Julene was awarded primary physical custody of their son, Tell.
- The family resided in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where neither parent had any extended family.
- Following the divorce, Julene worked a part-time job for $6.00 per hour with no benefits, and this position was soon to be eliminated.
- Julene received a full-time job offer in Springdale, Arkansas, paying $8.50 per hour with full benefits, including health insurance, paid leave, and retirement plans.
- The proposed move to Arkansas would place Julene and Tell in close proximity to Julene's parents and sister, and within a two-hour drive of James's parents.
- In anticipation of the move, Julene had secured an apartment and daycare placement for Tell in Arkansas.
- James consistently exercised his visitation rights with Tell, which included alternating weekends, two evenings per week, and extended summer visitation.
Procedural Posture:
- During the original divorce proceeding in North Dakota district court, Julene Stout's initial request to move with the child to Arkansas was denied.
- In March 1996, Julene Stout filed a motion in the same district court to change the child's residence to Arkansas, which James Stout opposed.
- On May 24, 1996, the district court (trial court) denied Julene Stout's motion.
- Julene Stout (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, with James Stout as 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 err in denying a custodial parent's request to relocate with a child to another state by failing to properly weigh the economic and non-economic advantages of the move for the new family unit against the negative impact on the noncustodial parent's visitation rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Maring, Justice
Yes. A trial court's denial of a relocation request is clearly erroneous when it fails to properly analyze the best interests of the child by applying a specific four-factor test. This test requires the court to weigh: (1) the prospective advantages of the move for the custodial parent and child; (2) the integrity of the custodial parent's motives for relocating; (3) the integrity of the noncustodial parent's motives for opposing the move; and (4) the realistic opportunity for an alternative visitation schedule that preserves the noncustodial parent's relationship with the child. The court reasoned that the well-being of the custodial parent is inextricably interwoven with the child's best interests, and a move sought in good faith for legitimate advantages should not be denied solely to maintain the existing visitation pattern when reasonable alternatives, such as less frequent but more extended visits, are available. In this case, the significant economic and non-economic advantages for Julene and Tell outweighed the inevitable change in visitation.
Dissenting - Sandstrom, Justice
No. The trial court correctly applied long-standing North Dakota law, which prioritizes the child's best interest in maintaining frequent and continuing contact with both parents over the desires or happiness of the custodial parent. The majority improperly abandons precedent and legislative intent by creating a new standard that elevates the custodial parent's quality of life, effectively nullifying the statute designed to protect the noncustodial parent's visitation rights. The majority engages in improper fact-finding and substitutes its judgment for that of the trial court, which was in the best position to assess the situation. The child's right to the love and companionship of both parents should be the paramount concern, not the custodial parent's wish for a different lifestyle.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Neumann, Justice
The opinion agrees with the majority that a more specific, instructive standard is needed for relocation cases and that the four-factor test is an appropriate standard. However, the trial court's decision was not clearly erroneous under the old, vague 'best interests' standard that existed at the time. Therefore, instead of reversing the decision outright, the proper remedy would be to remand the case to the trial court to reconsider the facts in light of the newly articulated four-factor test.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing a clear, four-factor test for child relocation cases in North Dakota, replacing the vague 'best interests of the child' standard. It aligns the state with a modern trend in family law that recognizes the well-being of the custodial parent as being 'inextricably interwoven' with the child's own well-being. By prioritizing a holistic view of the new family unit's quality of life over the mere preservation of an existing visitation schedule, the case makes it easier for custodial parents to relocate for legitimate career or family support reasons. This precedent provides trial courts with specific guidance and shifts the focus toward creating workable, long-distance visitation plans rather than preventing moves altogether.
Unlock the full brief for Stout v. Stout