KAPSNER, Justice.
[¶ 1] Ronald K. Reineke (“Reineke”) appealed from the judgment entered in the divorce action brought by Frances M. Rei-neke (“Michels”),1 and she cross-appealed. We affirm the judgment and remand with directions to retain jurisdiction.
I
[¶ 2] The parties married in 1983. The parties had two children, a son, born in 1985, and a daughter, born in 1988. In October 2001, Reineke began a social relationship with Betty Althoff and told Michels he wanted a divorce. The relationship with Althoff became intimate on December 31, 2001, or January 1, 2002. Michels sued for divorce in February 2002. In March 2002, Reineke, his daughter, Althoff, and Althoffs children visited a Mend of Althoffs in Nebraska. Reineke and Althoff shared a room, while Reineke’s daughter and Althoffs children slept in another room. Reineke stayed at Althoffs home about once a week until he moved out of the family home in April 2002.
[¶ 3] The judgment entered on December 5, 2002, granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, ordered Rei-neke to pay rehabilitative spousal support of $300 per month from November 15, 2002, through November 15, 2006, or until Michels remarries, awarded Michels primary physical custody of the children, set a visitation schedule, and ordered Reineke to pay child support of $638 per month. Reineke appealed the judgment and Mi-chels cross-appealed.
II
Reineke’s Appeal
a. Property and Support
[¶ 4] Reineke contends the court’s property distribution awarded him a negative $1,823.37 and awarded Michels $34,088 and is clearly erroneous. He contends the award of rehabilitative spousal support of $300 per month for four years to Michels is also clearly erroneous.
[¶ 5] The trial court in a divorce case must equitably distribute the marital property. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24; Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶8, 660 N.W.2d 586. While a property distribution need not be equal to be equitable, the trial court must explain a substantial disparity. Sommers, at ¶ 8. A trial court’s determinations regarding division of property are treated as findings of fact and will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Hogan v. Hogan, 2003 ND [845]*845105, ¶ 14, 665 N.W.2d 672. There are no set rules for distributing marital property, but to assist in its determination, courts follow established caselaw setting out certain guidelines, known as the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, Hogan, at ¶ 19, derived from Ruff v. Ruff 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952), and Fischer v. Fischer, 189 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966).
[¶ 6] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1, a trial court in a divorce case “may require one party to pay spousal support to the other party for any period of time.” We recently addressed permanent and rehabilitative spousal support in Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 16, 660 N.W.2d 586 (quoting Sommer v. Sommer, 2001 ND 191, ¶ 14, 636 N.W.2d 423) (citations omitted):
We recognize permanent spousal support and rehabilitative spousal support as two distinct remedies. Permanent spousal support is generally appropriate when the disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for the opportunities lost in the course of the marriage. Furthermore, permanent spousal support may be awarded “where the marriage has been of long duration and the dependent spouse has health problems or is of such an age that adequate rehabilitation is unlikely.” In contrast, rehabilitative spousal support is appropriate “when it is possible to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent economic status or to equalize the burden of divorce by increasing the disadvantaged spouse’s earning capacity.” However, even when the disadvantaged spouse is capable of rehabilitation, our Court has recognized permanent spousal support as an appropriate remedy to ensure the parties equitably share the overall reduction in their separate standards of living.
We continued:
When justified by the facts, rehabilitative support is preferred over permanent spousal support. Fox, 1999 ND 68, ¶ 21, 592 N.W.2d 541. “Nevertheless, when there is substantial disparity between the spouse’s incomes that cannot be readily adjusted by property division or rehabilitative support, it may be appropriate for the court to award indefinite permanent support to maintain the disadvantaged spouse.” Id. While we have not endorsed the equalization of income between divorcing spouses as a measure of spousal support, Riehl, 1999 ND 107, ¶ 17, 595 N.W.2d 10, a difference in earning power is a proper factor for consideration in prescribing spousal support, Pfliger v. Pfliger, 461 N.W.2d 432, 436 (N.D.1990).
Sommers, at ¶ 17.
[¶ 7] “Questions of property division and spousal support cannot be considered separately or in a vacuum, but ordinarily must be examined and dealt with together, especially when there is a large difference in earning power between the spouses.” Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 15, 660 N.W.2d 586. When awarding spousal support, the trial court is to apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 100 (N.D.1994). A trial court’s determination of spousal support is reviewed as a finding of fact and will only be overturned if it is clearly erroneous. Corbett v. Corbett, 2002 ND 103, ¶ 4, 646 N.W.2d 677.
[¶ 8] Thus, the Ruff-Fischer guidelines apply to both property division and spousal support, which ordinarily must be considered together, and a trial court’s spousal support and property division determinations are findings of fact that are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the following factors should be considered:
[846]*846the respective ages of the parties to the marriage; their earning abilities; the duration of the marriage and the conduct of each during the marriage; their station in life; the circumstances and necessities of each; their health and physical conditions; their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time; its value and income-producing capacity, if any, and whether it was accumulated or acquired before or after the marriage; and such other matters as may be material.
Shields v. Shields, 2003 ND 16, ¶ 7, 656 N.W.2d 712 (quoting Mellum v. Mellum, 2000 ND 47, ¶ 15, 607 N.W.2d 580). “Under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, both economic and noneconomic fault are proper factors for the trial court to consider in dividing marital property.” McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 ND 176, ¶ 6, 635 N.W.2d 139.
[¶ 9] Michels was 48 years old at the time of trial. She has two years of college and works as a records clerk in a medical clinic, earning about $19,000 per year. She has multiple sclerosis. Reineke was 47 years old at the time of trial. He works as a truck driver, earning about $32,000 per year. He has diabetes and has anxiety attacks. The trial court considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. For the property distribution, the court considered and made findings about the parties’ ages, health, and incomes, the length of the marriage, and, among other things:
For most of the marriage Ron has been a controlling spouse.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KAPSNER, Justice.
[¶ 1] Ronald K. Reineke (“Reineke”) appealed from the judgment entered in the divorce action brought by Frances M. Rei-neke (“Michels”),1 and she cross-appealed. We affirm the judgment and remand with directions to retain jurisdiction.
I
[¶ 2] The parties married in 1983. The parties had two children, a son, born in 1985, and a daughter, born in 1988. In October 2001, Reineke began a social relationship with Betty Althoff and told Michels he wanted a divorce. The relationship with Althoff became intimate on December 31, 2001, or January 1, 2002. Michels sued for divorce in February 2002. In March 2002, Reineke, his daughter, Althoff, and Althoffs children visited a Mend of Althoffs in Nebraska. Reineke and Althoff shared a room, while Reineke’s daughter and Althoffs children slept in another room. Reineke stayed at Althoffs home about once a week until he moved out of the family home in April 2002.
[¶ 3] The judgment entered on December 5, 2002, granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, ordered Rei-neke to pay rehabilitative spousal support of $300 per month from November 15, 2002, through November 15, 2006, or until Michels remarries, awarded Michels primary physical custody of the children, set a visitation schedule, and ordered Reineke to pay child support of $638 per month. Reineke appealed the judgment and Mi-chels cross-appealed.
II
Reineke’s Appeal
a. Property and Support
[¶ 4] Reineke contends the court’s property distribution awarded him a negative $1,823.37 and awarded Michels $34,088 and is clearly erroneous. He contends the award of rehabilitative spousal support of $300 per month for four years to Michels is also clearly erroneous.
[¶ 5] The trial court in a divorce case must equitably distribute the marital property. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24; Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶8, 660 N.W.2d 586. While a property distribution need not be equal to be equitable, the trial court must explain a substantial disparity. Sommers, at ¶ 8. A trial court’s determinations regarding division of property are treated as findings of fact and will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Hogan v. Hogan, 2003 ND [845]*845105, ¶ 14, 665 N.W.2d 672. There are no set rules for distributing marital property, but to assist in its determination, courts follow established caselaw setting out certain guidelines, known as the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, Hogan, at ¶ 19, derived from Ruff v. Ruff 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952), and Fischer v. Fischer, 189 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966).
[¶ 6] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1, a trial court in a divorce case “may require one party to pay spousal support to the other party for any period of time.” We recently addressed permanent and rehabilitative spousal support in Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 16, 660 N.W.2d 586 (quoting Sommer v. Sommer, 2001 ND 191, ¶ 14, 636 N.W.2d 423) (citations omitted):
We recognize permanent spousal support and rehabilitative spousal support as two distinct remedies. Permanent spousal support is generally appropriate when the disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for the opportunities lost in the course of the marriage. Furthermore, permanent spousal support may be awarded “where the marriage has been of long duration and the dependent spouse has health problems or is of such an age that adequate rehabilitation is unlikely.” In contrast, rehabilitative spousal support is appropriate “when it is possible to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent economic status or to equalize the burden of divorce by increasing the disadvantaged spouse’s earning capacity.” However, even when the disadvantaged spouse is capable of rehabilitation, our Court has recognized permanent spousal support as an appropriate remedy to ensure the parties equitably share the overall reduction in their separate standards of living.
We continued:
When justified by the facts, rehabilitative support is preferred over permanent spousal support. Fox, 1999 ND 68, ¶ 21, 592 N.W.2d 541. “Nevertheless, when there is substantial disparity between the spouse’s incomes that cannot be readily adjusted by property division or rehabilitative support, it may be appropriate for the court to award indefinite permanent support to maintain the disadvantaged spouse.” Id. While we have not endorsed the equalization of income between divorcing spouses as a measure of spousal support, Riehl, 1999 ND 107, ¶ 17, 595 N.W.2d 10, a difference in earning power is a proper factor for consideration in prescribing spousal support, Pfliger v. Pfliger, 461 N.W.2d 432, 436 (N.D.1990).
Sommers, at ¶ 17.
[¶ 7] “Questions of property division and spousal support cannot be considered separately or in a vacuum, but ordinarily must be examined and dealt with together, especially when there is a large difference in earning power between the spouses.” Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 15, 660 N.W.2d 586. When awarding spousal support, the trial court is to apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 100 (N.D.1994). A trial court’s determination of spousal support is reviewed as a finding of fact and will only be overturned if it is clearly erroneous. Corbett v. Corbett, 2002 ND 103, ¶ 4, 646 N.W.2d 677.
[¶ 8] Thus, the Ruff-Fischer guidelines apply to both property division and spousal support, which ordinarily must be considered together, and a trial court’s spousal support and property division determinations are findings of fact that are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the following factors should be considered:
[846]*846the respective ages of the parties to the marriage; their earning abilities; the duration of the marriage and the conduct of each during the marriage; their station in life; the circumstances and necessities of each; their health and physical conditions; their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time; its value and income-producing capacity, if any, and whether it was accumulated or acquired before or after the marriage; and such other matters as may be material.
Shields v. Shields, 2003 ND 16, ¶ 7, 656 N.W.2d 712 (quoting Mellum v. Mellum, 2000 ND 47, ¶ 15, 607 N.W.2d 580). “Under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, both economic and noneconomic fault are proper factors for the trial court to consider in dividing marital property.” McDowell v. McDowell, 2001 ND 176, ¶ 6, 635 N.W.2d 139.
[¶ 9] Michels was 48 years old at the time of trial. She has two years of college and works as a records clerk in a medical clinic, earning about $19,000 per year. She has multiple sclerosis. Reineke was 47 years old at the time of trial. He works as a truck driver, earning about $32,000 per year. He has diabetes and has anxiety attacks. The trial court considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. For the property distribution, the court considered and made findings about the parties’ ages, health, and incomes, the length of the marriage, and, among other things:
For most of the marriage Ron has been a controlling spouse. Testimony was received that he demeaned Fran and would do so in public. Ron expected to be waited upon and was controlling as to finances of the marriage. Ron was involved in a relationship with Betty pri- or to the divorce proceedings.
[[Image here]]
15. The parties borrowed $10,000 from Fran’s family to buy the house and are expected to pay this back. The remaining balance is approximately $8,100.
The court explained the disparity in the property distribution:
6. The Court notes the length of the marriage, the controlling nature of Ron and the actions of Ron contributing to the divorce as reasons for the unequal asset allocation. The Court further notes the loan from Fran’s family for the home, if not paid back, will result in less inheritance for Fran as testified to by her mother.
The court found Michels needed rehabilitative spousal support:
12. The Court finds Fran has been disadvantaged by the marriage to Ron. Ron throughout the marriage has controlled the finances and has placed the family in a situation of debt. Such debt is with the family even though Fran’s family helped to finance the home. The Court finds Fran will need a period of support to recover and be able to become self-supportive.
[¶ 10] From our review of the entire record, we conclude the trial court’s property distribution and spousal support award are not clearly erroneous.
b. Child Custody
[¶ 11] Reineke contends the trial court’s award of primary physical custody of the parties’ teenage children to Michels is clearly erroneous.
[¶ 12] “We exercise a limited review of child custody awards in divorce cases.” Schmidt v. Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 5, 660 N.W.2d 196. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.1, a trial court must award the custody of an unmarried minor child “to a person ... as will, in the opinion of the judge, promote the best interests and wel[847]*847fare of the child.” In making an initial custody determination, the court must determine a child’s best interest and welfare by considering the following factors, when applicable, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1):
a. The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parents and child.
b. The capacity and disposition of the parents to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education of the child.
c. The disposition of the parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in lieu of medical care, and other material needs.
d. The length of time the child has lived in a stable satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
e. The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home.
f. The moral fitness of the parents.
g. The mental and physical health of the parents.
h. The home, school, and community record of the child.
i. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
j. Evidence of domestic violence-
k. The interaction and interrelationship, or the potential for interaction and interrelationship, of the child with any person who resides in, is present, or frequents the household of a parent and who may significantly affect the child’s best interests. The court shall consider that person’s history of inflicting, or tendency to inflict, physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault, on other persons.
l. The making of false allegations not made in good faith, by one parent against the other, of harm to a child as defined in section 50-25.1-02.
m. Any other factors considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.
“A custody determination is a finding of fact that will not be set aside on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.” Schmidt, 2003 ND 55, ¶ 5, 660 N.W.2d 196. “A trial court’s findings of fact are presumptively correct, and we view the evidence in the fight most favorable to the findings.” Id.
[¶ 13] Here, the trial court found, with regard to factor c:
Allegations have been made there is not sufficient food in the home of Fran. No proof other than statements made by [the daughter] to Ron were presented to this court. Fran has been the parent who has taken care of the needs of the children such as doctors appointments, cooking and other needs of the children.
With regard to factor i, the court found:
The parties stipulated that [the daughter] desires to five with Ron. The Court looks at the actions taken by Ron in involving [the daughter] in these proceedings as inappropriate and discounts [the daughter’s] desires because of these actions. The court views [the daughter’s] relationships with adults through Ron and her actions in taking photos of the home as inappropriate. The court discounts the desires of [the daughter] in determining custody.
Thus, the court implicitly found that consideration of factors c and i favored Mi-chels. The court specifically found that [848]*848consideration of factors b, d, e, f, k, and m favored Michels. The court specifically found factors g and l favored neither. The court found there was no domestic violence. The court did not find either party was favored by consideration of factors a and h. The court did not find that consideration of any factor favored Reineke.
[¶ 14] From our review of the record, we conclude the trial court’s custody determination is not clearly erroneous.
c. Child Testimony
[¶ 15] Reineke contends the court erred in refusing to allow the children to testify.
[¶ 16] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(i), one of the factors the court must consider in making a child custody determination is “[t]he reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.” “Generally, a trial court has wide discretion regarding the examination of witnesses, and, under appropriate circumstances, a court may refuse to allow a witness to testify.” Fargo Women’s Health Org., Inc. v. Larson, 391 N.W.2d 627, 630 (N.D.1986). Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 61, “[n]o error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence ... is ground for granting a new trial or ... otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.”
[¶ 17] The legislature has determined that fourteen-year-old children are capable of acting responsibly in a variety of matters. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 14-10-17 (“Any person of the age of fourteen years or older may contract for and receive examination, care, or treatment for sexually transmitted disease, alcoholism, or drug abuse vfithout permission, authority, or consent of a parent or guardian.”); N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34 (prosecution of a child of fourteen or more years of age for delinquent conduct designated a crime or offense may be transferred from juvenile court to another court); N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-03 (“A minor of fourteen or more years may prevent an appointment of the minor’s testamentary guardian from becoming effective, or may cause a previously accepted appointment to terminate.”); N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-06 (“The court shall appoint [as guardian] a person nominated by the minor, if the minor is fourteen years of age or older, unless the court finds the appointment contrary to the best interests of the minor.”); N.D.C.C. § 47-24.1-14 (on petition of a minor who has attained the age of fourteen years, a court may order a custodian of the minor’s property to deliver or pay to the minor so much of the custodial property as the court considers advisable); N.D.C.C. § 47-24.1-18 (a minor who has attained the age of fourteen years may designate a successor custodian if none has been designated, and may petition the court to remove a custodian and to designate a successor custodian). Thus, there is a legislative policy that children of the age of those involved in this case can and do make significant decisions in their fives, which courts must consider in determining children’s custody preferences, and in making custody decisions.
[1118] Although N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) only requires a court to consider a child’s reasonable custodial preference, without guaranteeing a right to testify, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the fourteen and seventeen-year-old children in this case to testify, without first assessing whether the children were of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
[¶ 19] Although we have concluded the trial court abused its discretion in refusing [849]*849to allow the children to testify without such an assessment, we do not reverse the court’s custody determination, because the court assumed the daughter preferred to live with her father in making its determination, and, under the trial court’s analysis, consideration of the statutory factors overwhelmingly favored Michels.
d. Custody Investigator
[¶ 20] Reineke contends the trial court erred in denying his request for appointment of a custody investigator. The appointment of a custody investigator under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.3 or a guardian ad litem under N.D.C.C., § 14-09-06.4 is committed to the trial court’s discretion. Green v. Green, 1999 ND 86, ¶ 9, 593 N.W.2d 398. We are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying-Reineke’s request for appointment of a custody investigator.
Ill
Michels’s Cross-Appeal
a. Spousal Support
[¶ 21] Michels contends “[a]n award of rehabilitative spousal support in the amount of $300.00 per month for four years, or until Fran remarries, is clearly erroneous.”
[f 22] Michels earns about $19,000 per year and Reineke earns about $32,000 per year. The evidence shows neither party is likely to earn significantly more money in their present positions. While the award of $300 per month is not clearly erroneous, we are not certain of the rationale underlying the trial court’s decision to end spousal support after four years. We have “recognized permanent spousal support as an appropriate remedy to ensure the parties equitably share the overall reduction in their separate standards of living.” Sommers v. Sommers, 2003 ND 77, ¶ 16, 660 N.W.2d 586 (quoting Sommer v. Sommer, 2001 ND 191, ¶ 14, 636 N.W.2d 423). When there is a substantial disparity in divorcing parties’ incomes, a permanent support award may be appropriate. Sommers, at ¶ 17. “While we have not endorsed the equalization of income between divorcing spouses as a measure of spousal support,” id., this Court upheld such an award in Glander v. Glander, 1997 ND 192, ¶ 18, 569 N.W.2d 262. Although “the trial court would not have erred in awarding permanent spousal support or rehabilitative support without reduction,” Sommers, at ¶ 18, we conclude the award was not clearly erroneous.
[¶ 23] We further conclude, however, that the court should have retained jurisdiction for possible modification of the spousal support obligation.
If trial courts find no immediate need for awarding permanent spousal support, they should retain jurisdiction to do so beyond a temporary award, when facing uncertainty about the need for permanent support. This will further the interests of a spouse potentially in need of support on a permanent basis by leaving the award open for later modification.
van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 101 (N.D.1994). With her multiple sclerosis, much lower income than Rei-neke, and slim chance of substantially increasing her income in her present position, Michels clearly is “a spouse potentially in need of support on a permanent basis.” Id. We, therefore, direct the trial court to modify the judgment on remand to retain jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future, should subsequent circumstances demonstrate a need for modification of the support award.
b. Attorney Fees and Costs
[¶ 24] Michels contends the trial court abused its discretion in not [850]*850awarding her attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23. “An award of attorney fees in a divorce action under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23 is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion.” Kautzman v. Kautzman, 1998 ND 192, ¶ 32, 585 N.W.2d 561. “The principal factors for consideration in awarding attorney fees in a divorce action are the parties’ needs and ability to pay.” Id. “The trial court may also consider whether one party’s actions unreasonably increased the time spent on the dispute.” Id. Considering the disparity in the property distribution, Michels’s needs, and Reineke’s ability to pay, in light of his needs and his child support and spousal support obligations, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award Michels attorney fees.
IV
[¶ 25] The judgment is affirmed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for modification of the judgment to retain jurisdiction over spousal support.
[¶ 26] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and DALE V. SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.