McAllister v. McAllister, 20090176.
Decision Date | 16 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 20090176.,20090176. |
Citation | 779 NW 2d 652,2010 ND 40 |
Parties | Mark Alexander McALLISTER, Plaintiff, Appellee and Cross-Appellant v. Robin Marie McALLISTER, Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Appellee and Michael J. Tharaldson, Defendant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Melinda Hanson Weerts, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff, appellee and cross-appellant.
L. Patrick O'Day, Fargo, ND, for defendant, appellant and cross-appellee.
¶ 1Robin McAllister appealed, and Mark McAllister cross-appealed, from the district court's judgment in this divorce.The district court granted decisionmaking responsibility and primary residential responsibility for E.M., who is Robin McAllister's biological child and Mark McAllister's stepchild, to Robin McAllister.1The district court also found Mark McAllister is E.M.'s psychological parent and granted him reasonable visitation.The district court further ordered Robin McAllister to invite Mark McAllister to school events and provide him with progress reports.Finally, the district court found Mark McAllister"is entitled to all legal rights set forth in § 14-09-28 of the North Dakota Century Code."We affirm the district court's judgment that exceptional circumstances exist justifying reasonable visitation for Mark McAllister.The district court's finding that Mark McAllister has the rights listed in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-28 is not clearly erroneous because the rights relate to communication and visitation.
¶ 2Robin McAllister conceived a child, E.M., with Michael Tharaldson.While she was pregnant, Robin McAllister moved out of Tharaldson's home.She met Mark McAllister and moved in with him.After E.M. was born in 2002, Robin McAllister and Mark McAllister raised him together.Robin McAllister and Mark McAllister married in 2004 and had two children.In 2008, Robin McAllister left Mark McAllister.She took E.M. with her, while leaving the two younger children with Mark McAllister.Robin McAllister and E.M. moved in with Jason Prosje, with whom Robin McAllister previously had a relationship.Mark McAllister filed for divorce in March 2008, naming Robin McAllister and Tharaldson as defendants.Robin McAllister and Mark McAllister resolved all the issues of the divorce, except custody of E.M., by stipulation.
¶ 3 After Robin McAllister left Mark McAllister, she informed E.M. that Tharaldson, not Mark McAllister, was his biological father.Tharaldson's paternity of E.M. was established by the district court in 2003, and his parental rights have not been terminated.Tharaldson was ordered to pay three thousand dollars per month in child support.The district court also established a graduated schedule of parenting time for Tharaldson.Robin McAllister testified Tharaldson has remained current on his child support payments and exercised parenting time with E.M. until E.M. was age two, then again after the McAllisters separated.
¶ 4Mark McAllister retains primary residential responsibility of the two younger children, with scheduled parenting time for Robin McAllister.Regarding his relationship with E.M., he testified, E.M. always has, and continues to, refer to Mark McAllister as "Dad" or "Daddy."Mark McAllister requested decisionmaking responsibility and primary residential responsibility of E.M.:
I want custody of E.M. because I love him.Because he is my oldest kid and he has always been my oldest kid.I worry about his well-being and I worry about him being taken care of.And I worry about him growing up to be a good functioning member of society and being happy.I don't think Robin can do that.I think that she can clothe him and feed him, but I don't think that psychologically she can help him when he needs help.
¶ 5Robin McAllister testified she believed Mark McAllister was away for work and left her alone with the children too much during the marriage.When she left Mark McAllister, she took E.M. with her "because he is not Mark's biological child."She believed leaving her two other children with Mark McAllister"would be best for them."In her opinion, it would be best for E.M. "to stay with his mother, and... limit the visitation a little bit with Mark so that he has time to adjust to things going on in his life like Mike Tharaldson wanting visitation, like the new home life with Jason Prosje and Prosje's daughter and mommy being happier."
¶ 6 The custody investigator testified she believed Robin McAllister had a "strong bond" with E.M., but questioned her "ability to consistently provide a strong, nurturing relationship to her son."The custody investigator's concern was based on Robin McAllister's history of depression and the consistency of her treatment for her mental health needs.She had no concern about Mark McAllister's ability to consistently maintain a strong bond with E.M.The custody investigator also testified Robin McAllister is "very capable of being a good mother."She testified it is important for E.M. to "maintain regular contact" with both Robin McAllister and Mark McAllister"because that's his family, it's important to him."According to the custody investigator, E.M. considers Mark McAllister to be his father.She testified Mark McAllister is E.M.'s psychological parent.However, she did not believe E.M. would suffer any detriment or harm if primary residential responsibility was granted to Robin McAllister.The custody investigator recommended decisionmaking responsibility and primary residential responsibility should remain with Robin McAllister, with "fairly liberal" visitation for Mark McAllister, including allowing E.M. to attend McAllister family functions.She also recommended that Robin McAllister should inform Mark McAllister of all of E.M.'s school functions and list Mark McAllister as an emergency contact for E.M.
¶ 7 In its Supplemental Memorandum Opinion, Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment the district court stated, "There is no evidence that Robin is an `unfit' parent."The district court further noted the custody investigator "did not believe E.M. to be at risk of serious harm or detriment in his mother's custody."(Emphasis in original).The district court concluded a best interests analysis was unnecessary and granted decisionmaking responsibility and primary residential responsibility to Robin McAllister, but also stated Mark McAllister has the "right to be considered a psychological parent with legal standing and significant visitation rights."
¶ 8The district court discussed Mark McAllister's role in E.M.'s life:
¶ 9 In its original Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, the district court also granted Mark "the right to obtain all necessary medical and dental care for E.M. including psychological counseling and psychiatric care, if applicable."This language was removed after a hearing was held in April 2009 and does not appear in the district court's final opinion.The district court explained its reasoning during the April hearing:
I was intending to give him specifically all these special information rights, for E.'s good, not to Robin's detriment, but for E's benefit and Mark's benefit, and the bonding group of the boys with Mark, just because he would be seeing so much of E. in the context of seeing him with the boys, but the access to information.Not the right to make determinations as to care, those would be Robin's under my decision.
¶ 10The district court's decision in this case was not intended to affect Tharaldson's parental rights or duties.The district court explained, ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Marsden F v. Jason Koop
...[primary residential responsibility] is a finding of fact which this Court will not disturb unless it is clearly erroneous.” McAllister v. McAllister, 2010 ND 40, ¶ 13, 779 N.W.2d 652 (quoting Interest of D.P.O., 2003 ND 127, ¶ 6, 667 N.W.2d 590). “Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), a finding of fac......
-
Martiré v. Martiré
...a third party for a sufficient period of time to develop a psychological parent relationship with that third party. See, e.g., McAllister v. McAllister, 2010 ND 40, ¶ 14, 779 N.W.2d 652. The best interests of children need not be sacrificed merely to foster general policies declared by this......
-
Brouillet v. Brouillet
...maintain and facilitate the oldest child's relationship with the two younger children and with Bradley Brouillet. See, e.g., McAllister v. McAllister, 2010 ND 40, ¶¶ 15–16, 779 N.W.2d 652 (stepfather was child's psychological parent); Edwards v. Edwards, 2010 ND 2, ¶ 10, 777 N.W.2d 606 (ste......
-
Clinic v. Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd.
...select what this Court deems the more appropriate rule of law for our state. But that normally is a legislative function. See McAllister v. McAllister, 2010 ND 40, ¶ 35, 779 N.W.2d 652 (Crothers, J., specially concurring) (noting the legislature is the policy setting branch of government wi......