Stoppler v. Stoppler

2001 ND 148, 633 N.W.2d 142, 2001 N.D. LEXIS 164, 2001 WL 985751

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: August 29, 2001
• Docket: 20000330
• Status: Published

Opinions

NEUMANN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Kyle Kaye Stoppler has appealed the September 27, 2000, judgment entered in a divorce action filed by Bradley John Stoppler. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

[¶ 2] The parties married in 1992. A daughter, KayLee, was born to the parties in 1993. Kyle’s two children from a previous marriage lived with the parties on a farm. Bradley farmed and ranched, and Kyle worked outside the home during most of the marriage. Kyle twice took the children and left Bradley. In 1999 Kyle became romantically involved with Keith Ha-gen. On September 11, 1999, Kyle told Bradley she wanted a divorce and disclosed her affair with Hagen. Kyle and the children moved out of the marital home on September 19, 1999, to live with Kyle’s mother.

[¶ 3] Bradley sued for a divorce on September 23, 1999. After a hearing, the trial court issued an amended interim order granting Bradley temporary custody of KayLee, prohibiting Kyle from permitting “KayLee to associate with or be in the presence of Keith Hagen,” and giving Kyle “visitation with KayLee for three days during the week and on alternating weekends.” The judgment entered on September 27, 2000, granted Bradley a divorce “on the grounds that [Kyle Stoppler’s] adulterous relationship with Keith Hagen has caused irreconcilable differences between them”; awarded Bradley the care, custody, and control of KayLee; granted Kyle reasonable visitation, including alternating weekends and eight weeks of continuous summer visitation; determined Kyle’s monthly net income and fixed her child support obligation at $50 per month; distributed the parties’ marital property; specified “[n]o spousal support is awarded to Defendant”; directed Bradley to pay the Guardian ad Litem $2,015.48; and directed Bradley to pay $2,500 of Kyle’s attorney fees within 60 days.

[¶ 4] Kyle filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay of the custody and child support provisions pending the outcome of the appeal. The trial court denied the motion in an order issued January 16, 2001. Kyle contends the trial court’s determinations on custody, visitation, property division, and its failure to award her spousal support are clearly erroneous.

I

[¶ 5] Kyle contends the trial court’s custody determination is clearly erroneous. In making an initial custody determination, a trial court must base custody on the best interest and welfare of the child, considering all of the factors listed in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). Reeves v. Chepulis, 1999 ND 63, ¶ 10, 591 N.W.2d 791.

[¶ 6] Section 14-09-06.2(1), N.D.C.C., provides in part:

1. For the purpose of custody, the best interests and welfare of the child is determined by the court’s consideration and evaluation of all factors affecting the best interests and welfare of the child. These factors include all of the following when applicable:

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.

[¶ 7] We exercise a limited review of a child custody award in divorce cases:

A trial court’s custody determination is a finding of fact that will not be set aside on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. A trial court’s findings of fact are presumptively correct. The complaining party bears the burden of demonstrating on appeal that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous. In reviewing findings of fact, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings. A choice between two permissible views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous. Simply because we might view the evidence differently does not entitle us to reverse the trial court. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Reeves v. Chepulis, 1999 ND 63, ¶ 8, 591 N.W.2d 791, quoting Reimche v. Reimche, 1997 ND 138, ¶ 12, 566 N.W.2d 790. “While split custody of siblings is generally disfavored, McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647 (N.D.1995), we have affirmed it in some cases of half-siblings.” Ryan v. Flemming, 533 N.W.2d 920, 924 (N.D. 1995). “It is especially appropriate that in close cases having to do with deciding custody of children between two fit parents that due regard be given to the trial court’s opportunity to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Dinius v. Dinius, 448 N.W.2d 210, 214 (N.D.1989). Established patterns of care and nurture are relevant factors for consideration in deciding custody. Heggen v. Heggen, 452 N.W.2d 96, 101 (N.D.1990). “An award of custody is a finding of fact, and this Court will not disturb a custody award unless it is clearly erroneous.” Brown v. Brown, 1999 ND 199, ¶ 10, 600 N.W.2d 869.

[¶ 8] In considering the thirteen factors specified by N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1), the trial court found one — factor a — favored Kyle, and found seven — factors b, c, g, h, i, j, and 1 — favored neither of the parties. With regard to the other five factors, the court found:

D. KayLee has lived on the farm all of her life. Her father is a farmer/rancher. Certainly there are risks and dangers on a farm/ranch. Good common sense and an appreciation of the risks and dangers is necessary in order to be safe on a farm or ranch. KayLee did suffer some bumps, bruises and a burn while she was in her father’s custody on the farm. KayLee was also injured while she was in her mother’s custody in Braddock. While in Braddock, Kaylee fell off her bike and was injured. And she burned her foot on a lawnmower which was being operated by her half-brother. Prior to the parties’ separation, the farm was a good, stable and satisfactory environment in which to raise a child. Just because one of the parties has chosen to leave the farm does not suddenly turn the farm into an unsatisfactory and dangerous place in which to raise a child. Mr. Stoppler understands the risks and dangers on the farm. He has been a farmer/rancher all his life. There is no credible evidence to show that Mr. Stoppler would place his daughter in some kind of jeopardy on the farm.

This factor favors the Plaintiff.

E. During the interim period, the Defendant along with her two sons from a prior marriage, live with Doreen Espe-rum, the mother of the Defendant, in Doreen’s small house in Braddock. After the divorce, the Defendant plans to move to Bismarck where she is currently working for U.S. Health Care. The Defendant, along with her two sons, form a family unit. She hopes to add KayLee to the family unit. Possibly, the Defendant will add Keith Hagen, her boyfriend to the family unit. Since the Defendant plans on moving out of her mother’s house, she is not able to inform the court about a custodial home. The Plaintiff lives on the farm and his plan is to stay on the farm. He hopes that the farm will continue to be KayLee’s custodial home.

This factor favors the Plaintiff because the farm has always been Kay-Lee’s permanent home.

F. The Defendant in her post trial brief stated, “Kyle did admit to having an affair with Keith Hagen prior to the parties’ separation.” Her adulterous relationship with Keith Hagen is ongoing. Her sexual misconduct with Mr. Hagen continues. She has not attempted to shield her children from her relationship with Mr. Hagen. Mr. Hagen even stays with the Defendant at the Defendant’s mother’s house. He interacts with her sons. KayLee even knows her mother is seeing another man, who is not her father. Now days, we tend to believe that what any two consenting adults do together is okay. But the plain fact is that this sexual misconduct by the Defendant and Mr. Hagen is simply immoral. Yern Zander, discovered the Defendant in a compromising position with a male motel patron in the hot tub of the Willows Motel. Mr. Zander was employed at the Willows Motel at the time. The Defendant contends that the male patron forced himself upon her. I do not believe her version of the story. She did not explain to or seek any help from Mr. Zander when she was discovered. She just left and went home.

This factor weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiff.

[[Image here]]

K. Defendant is in a relationship with Keith Hagen. Mr. Hagen is a soft-spoken person who has been convicted three times of driving while under the influence, and has been diagnosed as an alcoholic. Notwithstanding the diagnosis, Mr. Hagen does not believe he is an alcoholic and continues to drink alcohol. He testified that he drinks very seldom, once a month and' drinks, two, three, four beers, maybe. He has completed outpatient treatment and aftercare, and he does attend AA. There was some testimony from Mr. Hagen’s former girlfriend, Kasey Reich, that Mr. Hagen told her that he had to take classes for anger management. Mr. Hagen testified that he has no assault convictions or ever been violent with women. Other than Ms. Reich’s uncorroborated testimony, there is no evidence to show that Mr. Hagen has been convicted of assault or ever been violent with women. Mr. Hagen also testified that he plans on living with the Defendant when things are settled and calmed down. So, he definitely plans on having a relationship with the Defendant and her children in the future. Considering the potential for interaction and interrelationship of KayLee with Mr. Hagen, it would not be in the best interest of KayLee to reside in the same household with a person who has been convicted three times of DUI, been diagnosed as an alcoholic and despite treatment, continues to consume alcohol.

This factor weighs heavily in the Plaintiffs favor.

[[Image here]]

M. In this case, there has been some badmouthing of the Defendant by the Plaintiff in front of KayLee. According to Anne Summers report, KayLee has told her father to stop saying bad things about her mom. And, according to Ms. Summer’s report, the Plaintiff is making an effort to stop badmouthing the Defendant. After considering all the factors, custody of KayLee will be awarded to the Plaintiff. Overall, Mr. Stoppler has been a good father. He loves his daughter. Financially, he has the ability to care for her. Also, he has the ability to care for KayLee’s personal needs. KayLee can continue to be raised on the family farm in the family home. Ms. Stoppler is temporarily living with her mother in her mother’s small crowded home. She does not have a custodial home. Her continuous adulterous affair with a diagnosed alcoholic who continues to use alcohol is very troubling for the Court. Mr. Hagen plans on living with the Defendant.

It would not be in KayLee’s best interest to award custody to the Defendant.

[¶ 9] Most of the factors listed in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) are relatively clear. As the Michigan Supreme Court has recognized, however, factors d and e “are phrased somewhat awkwardly.” Ireland v. Smith, 451 Mich. 457, 547 N.W.2d 686, 690 (1996).

Factor d calls for a factual inquiry (how long has the child been in a stable, satisfactory environment?) and then states a value (“the desirability of maintaining continuity”). Taken literally, factor e appears to direct an inquiry into the extent to which a “home” will serve as a permanent “family unit.”

Id. at n. 8. Essentially, factor d addresses past stability of environment, including a consideration of place or physical setting, as well as a consideration of the prior family unit and its lifestyle as part of that setting. It also addresses the quality of that past environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity. Under factor d, “prior custody is a factor to be considered when determining the custodial arrangement which is best for the child.” 2 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Laio & Practice § 10.09[2] (2001). Factor e, on the other hand, deals with future prospects for permanence as a family unit. While “there clearly is a degree of overlap between” factors d and e, “the focus of factor e is the child’s prospects for a stable family environment.” Ireland, 547 N.W.2d at 690. The court noted ways in which stability may be undermined:

The stability of a child’s home can be undermined in various ways. This might include frequent moves to unfamiliar settings, a succession of persons residing in the home, live-in romantic companions for the custodial parent, or other potential disruptions. Of course, every situation needs to be examined individually.

Id. at n. 9.¹ In considering factor e, the trial court must weigh all the facts bearing on which parent can best provide their child “the benefits of a custodial home that is marked by permanence, as a family unit.” Id. at 691.

[¶ 10] The trial court’s analysis of factor d was appropriate. In its finding it considered the farm not merely as a location, but as a way of life that is a significant part of the environment in which KayLee has lived. The trial court also examined and weighed the risks inherent in that way of life, an issue raised by Kyle, as well as the protections from risk Bradley’s experience as a farmer-rancher can provide. It is clear the trial court found KayLee has lived in a stable satisfactory environment, an environment which in part included the many elements of life on the farm, and it is clear the trial court further found maintaining the continuity of that environment is desirable.

[¶ 11] The trial court’s analysis of factor e is a bit more troublesome. The first several sentences of the court’s findings regarding factor e clearly address the nature of the family unit of Kyle’s proposed custodial home and the likely relative permanence of that family unit, just as the factor contemplates. The last two sentences, however, speak to place, or perhaps environment, rather than family unit. Nothing in the paragraph appears to examine the family unit of Bradley’s proposed custodial home. Rather, the trial court seems to compare the likely relative permanence of the family unit of Kyle’s proposed custodial home with the continuity of the environment of Bradley’s proposed custodial home, an analysis which seems to mix factors d and e.

[¶ 12] Nevertheless, as we have noted, there is a degree of overlap between factors d and e. -While the finding regarding factor e may seem logically inconsistent, when we consider the trial court’s analyses of factors d and e together with its analyses of factors f, k and m, it is clear the court believed and found KayLee’s future prospects for a stable family environment with a more permanent family unit were greater in Bradley’s custody. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings of fact, which are presumed correct, we conclude the trial court’s custody award is not clearly erroneous.

II

[¶ 13] Kyle contends the trial “court’s award of only alternating weekend visitation with no additional evenings in between is insufficient to meet KayLee’s needs and is clearly erroneous.”

[¶ 14] Section 14-05-22(2), N.D.C.C., provides:

After making an award of custody, the court shall, upon request of the noncustodial parent, grant such rights of visitation as will enable the child and the noncustodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship that will be beneficial to the child, unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health.

The primary purpose of visitation is to promote the best interests of the children, not the wishes of the parents. Schiff v. Schiff 2000 ND 113, ¶ 9, 611 N.W.2d 191; Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1999 ND 135, ¶ 13, 596 N.W.2d 332. “Visitation with the noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the child’s best interests and is not merely a privilege of the noncustodial parent, but a right of the child.” Schiff, at ¶ 9. A trial court’s determination on visitation is treated as a finding of fact, which we will affirm unless it is clearly erroneous. Zuger v. Zuger, 1997 ND 97, ¶36, 563 N.W.2d 804; Reinecke v. Griffeth, 533 N.W.2d 695, 698 (N.D.1995).

[¶ 15] “Nothing prevents these families from voluntarily adjusting their differences in a spirit of compromise and cooperation to accomplish the best interests of all.” Peterson v. Peterson, 1997 ND 14, ¶ 28, 559 N.W.2d 826. If the parties are unable to adjust their visitation differences, after KayLee and her parents have exercised visitation in accordance with the provisions in the judgment for a time sufficient to afford KayLee an opportunity to forge closer ties with the custodial parent required by the divorce, the visitation issue can be addressed again. E.g., Iverson v. Iverson, 535 N.W.2d 739, 742 (N.D.1995) (“A trial court’s decision on modification of visitation is a finding of fact which will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.”).

[¶ 16] While we might have provided different visitation provisions had we tried the case, we conclude the trial court’s visitation determination is not clearly erroneous.

Ill

[¶ 17] Kyle contends the trial court’s property division is clearly erroneous. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24, “[w]hen a divorce is granted, the court shall make such equitable distribution of the real and personal property of the parties as may seem just and proper.” “While there is no set rule for distributing property, certain guidelines have been established for trial courts in Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107 (1952), and Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966).” VanRosendale v. VanRosendale, 333 N.W.2d 790, 791 (N.D.1983). “Although property division need not be equal to be equitable, the trial court must explain any substantial disparity.” Northrop v. Northrop, 2001 ND 31, ¶ 8, 622 N.W.2d 219. “A trial court’s determinations regarding division of marital property are treated as findings of fact that will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” Id.

[¶ 18] “In order to make an equitable distribution, the trial court must first determine the net worth of the parties’ property.” Freed v. Freed, 454 N.W.2d 516, 520 (N.D.1990). “To review a property division, we need to understand the reasons for the trial court’s decision.” Pfliger v. Pfliger, 461 N.W.2d 432, 436 (N.D.1990). The trial court must indicate a rationale for its distribution of the property. Northrop, 2001 ND 31, ¶ 10, 622 N.W.2d 219. “A factual basis is necessary for a reviewing court to understand whether a trial court’s distribution of marital property is clearly erroneous.” Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2001 ND 124, ¶ 27, 629 N.W.2d 573. “When the trial court fails to fully explain a property division, we will not upset it if the reasons are fairly discernible by deduction or inference.” Pfliger, at 436. “If the trial court fails to articulate an adequate factual basis for its property division or we are unable to determine its rationale through inference or deduction, we will remand for clarification of missing or conclusory findings.” Northrop, at ¶ 10.

[¶ 19] The trial court made the following property division in its September 26, 2000, amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment:

5. PROPERTY DIVISION: After full consideration of the Ruff-Fischer Guidelines, the Court has determined a fair and equitable division of the parties’ property and debts to be as follows:

Taking into consideration the fact that Plaintiff was a farmer/rancher prior to the marriage and that his income is totally dependent on the farming and ranching operation, he shall be awarded all livestock, feed and grain growing or on hand, all vehicles in his possession, his personal property in his possession, personal property he has acquired since the parties’ separation, his savings and checking accounts, all his debts, all debts he has incurred since the parties’ separation, all farming/ranching debts, and his insurance.

Taking into account that the Defendant’s income is not dependent upon the farming and ranching operation and the fact of the Defendant’s continuous adultery, she shall be awarded items on Defendant’s Exhibit G which include the following: all household goods in her possession, her household goods in the spare house, T.V., Twin size bed, Kitchen chairs, couch, chair, dishes/pots/pans, three dressers, freezer, lamp and entertainment center; all personal property in her possession, her vehicle and debt; her checking and savings accounts, personal property she has acquired since the parties’ separation, all her debts, all debts she incurred since the parties’ separation, any retirement or pension assets, and any insurance she may have obtained. To assist Defendant in getting back on her feet, she will be awarded a payment of $10,000.00 from Plaintiff. Payment is to be made within 60 days of the date of the Judgment.

[¶ 20] There were disputes about the value of commodities, cows, and debt owed to Bradley’s father. The trial court did not make findings determining the value of assets or debts, and did not make a finding determining the net worth of the parties’ marital property. We are unable to discern what was awarded to the parties or its value, and are, therefore, unable to provide any meaningful review of the trial court’s property distribution. We conclude the property distribution must be vacated and remanded for redetermination and the preparation of more complete findings.

IV

[¶ 21] Kyle contends the trial court’s failure to award her spousal support is clearly erroneous. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24, the trial court “may .compel either of the parties ... to make such suitable allowances to the other party for support during life or for a shorter period as to the court may seem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively.” Spousal support determinations are treated as findings of fact that will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 ND 176, ¶ 9, 584 N.W.2d 527; Zuger v. Zuger, 1997 ND 97, ¶ 17, 563 N.W.2d 804. A court cannot consider property division and spousal support separately in a vacuum, but must examine those issues together. Ketelsen v. Ketelsen, 1999 ND 148, ¶ 6, 598 N.W.2d 185. The trial court may reconsider the issue of spousal support when it redetermines the property distribution and prepares more complete findings on remand.

V

[¶ 22] The property distribution and spousal support provisions of the judgment are reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

[¶ 23]GERALD W. VANDEWALLE, C.J., and DALE V. SANDSTROM, CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ„ concur.

1 . We have recognized frequent moving is evt dence of a parent's inability to provide i stable environment for a child. In re D.F.G., 1999 ND 216, ¶ 16, 602 N.W.2d 697.