Thompson v. Thompson, No. 20110215.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | KAPSNER |
| Citation | 2012 ND 15,809 N.W.2d 331 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 20110215. |
| Parties | Scott D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Amanda S. THOMPSON, n/k/a Amanda S. Thompson Wetch, Defendant and Appellant. |
2012 ND 15
809 N.W.2d 331
Scott D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Amanda S. THOMPSON, n/k/a Amanda S. Thompson Wetch, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 20110215.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Jan. 12, 2012.
[809 N.W.2d 332]
Tyler S. Carlson (argued) and Krista Lyn Andrews (on brief), Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Laura Lynn Reynolds, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
KAPSNER, Justice.[¶ 1] Amanda Thompson Wetch, formerly known as Amanda Thompson, appeals from an order denying her motion to amend the second amended judgment granting Scott Thompson sole physical custody of the parties' two minor children during the school year and granting the parties joint physical custody during the summer. We conclude Thompson Wetch established a prima facie case and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her motion to modify primary residential responsibility of the children. We reverse and remand.
[¶ 2] Thompson Wetch and Thompson were divorced in 2002 and have two children
[809 N.W.2d 333]
together, T.T. and G.T. In 2004, Thompson Wetch and Thompson stipulated to a second amended judgment awarding custody of the children, which provided:
[Thompson] shall have primary sole physical and legal custody of the parties ['] minor children ... during the school year, beginning the first day school begins in the fall until the last day of school in the spring. From the first day after school ends until the last day of summer vacation the parties shall have joint physical custody with the children residing with [Thompson Wetch]. [Thompson Wetch] shall have visitation with the parties['] minor children during the school year as follows: Every other weekend from 5:00 p.m. on Friday to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. [Thompson] shall exercise this same visitation schedule during the summer months when the children are in [Thompson Wetch's] care.
[¶ 3] In 2011, Thompson Wetch moved to amend the second amended judgment, requesting the court modify primary residential responsibility of the parties' two children. Thompson Wetch argued there was a material change in circumstances and it was in the children's best interest to modify primary residential responsibility because Thompson has not allowed her to have parenting time with G.T. since December 2008 and T.T. has lived with her since October 2007 and rarely sees Thompson. Thompson Wetch requested the court hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion. The district court denied Thompson Wetch's motion, ruling “[t]his Court, having considered the submissions of both parties and applicable law set forth in section 14–09–06.6, finds that [Thompson Wetch] has not provided sufficient proof to establish a prima facie case.”
[¶ 4] Thompson Wetch argues the district court's finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case justifying modification is clearly erroneous, she presented sufficient evidence in her affidavit to establish a prima facie case, and she is entitled to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Jensen, No. 20120450.
...material change in circumstances is an important new fact that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. [¶ 7] The party seeking modification must initially establish a prima facie case justifying a modification: A party se......
-
Solwey v. Solwey, No. 20160158
...new fact that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case under N......
-
Solwey v. Solwey, No. 20160158
...was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat , 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7, 835 N.W.2d 846 ; Thompson v. Thompson , 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case un......
-
Anderson v. Jenkins, No. 20130078.
...that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7, 835 N.W.2d 846;Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case u......
-
Jensen v. Jensen, No. 20120450.
...material change in circumstances is an important new fact that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. [¶ 7] The party seeking modification must initially establish a prima facie case justifying a modification: A party se......
-
Solwey v. Solwey, No. 20160158
...new fact that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case under N......
-
Solwey v. Solwey, No. 20160158
...was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat , 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7, 835 N.W.2d 846 ; Thompson v. Thompson , 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case un......
-
Anderson v. Jenkins, No. 20130078.
...that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. See Charvat v. Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 7, 835 N.W.2d 846;Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331. The party moving for a change of primary residential responsibility has the burden of establishing a prima facie case u......