Carlson v. Carlson

Supreme Court of North Dakota · 2020 · Corporations

2020 ND 57 (2020)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationschild custodybest-interest factorsdomestic violence presumptionclear errorremandsummary affirmanceN.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2

Facts

The district court awarded Royce Carlson primary residential responsibility for the parties' minor children and gave him decision-making authority over daycare/afterschool provider decisions and non-emergency medical decisions. Jill Carlson challenged the district court's findings on multiple best-interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, including factor j concerning domestic violence. On an earlier appeal, the Supreme Court remanded for additional findings on factor j. On remand, the district court found the evidence did not trigger a presumption of domestic violence, and stated that if a presumption did apply, it had been overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue

Whether the district court clearly erred in its best-interest findings under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, particularly its additional finding on remand that the evidence did not trigger the domestic-violence presumption under factor j. Also at issue was whether the custody judgment should stand after the district court supplied the requested findings.

Rule

A district court's findings on child-custody best-interest factors, including whether the evidence triggers the domestic-violence presumption under factor j of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, are reviewed for clear error. If the district court's finding that the evidence did not trigger the domestic-violence presumption is not clearly erroneous, the custody judgment may be affirmed.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a custody dispute in Bismarck, the trial judge awarded primary residential responsibility to Nora Bennett and gave her authority over school-placement and routine medical decisions. On appeal, the high court retained jurisdiction and ordered additional findings limited to the domestic-violence best-interest factor; on remand, the judge found the proof did not trigger any domestic-violence presumption.

If the appellate court concludes that the trial judge’s no-presumption finding is not clearly erroneous, what is the most appropriate disposition?

Explanation. The governing rule is that findings on custody best-interest factors, including whether the evidence triggers the domestic-violence presumption under factor j, are reviewed for clear error. When the district court makes the requested additional factor-j findings on remand and the finding that no presumption was triggered is not clearly erroneous, the custody judgment may be affirmed.