## Facts

- Christina Deyle and Eric Deyle married in 2007 and had two children (one born in 2004 and one in 2008).
- The parties separated in June 2010 when Eric left the marital home; Christina remained with the children in the home until foreclosure proceedings began after Eric stopped paying the mortgage.
- Christina had been the children’s primary caretaker during and after the separation.
- Christina sought additional schooling as a dental hygienist, which the district court viewed as likely to require multiple moves and to affect the children’s stability.
- In the divorce judgment, the district court awarded Eric primary residential responsibility, granted Christina parenting time without extended summer parenting time, and denied interim child support and attorney’s fees.
- Christina appealed the residential-responsibility award and the lack of explanation for denying extended summer parenting time, interim child support, and attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in awarding Eric primary residential responsibility under the best-interests factors in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2.
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to explain its denial of extended summer parenting time to Christina.
3. Whether the district court erred by failing to explain its denial of interim child support and attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the award of primary residential responsibility to Eric.
- The court held that, after the 2009 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(d), courts must consider both past and prospective stability when evaluating the stability factor, and the district court’s overall best-interests findings were not clearly erroneous.
- The court reversed and remanded the denials of extended summer parenting time, interim child support, and attorney’s fees because the district court did not provide reasons sufficient for appellate review.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Primary residential responsibility determinations under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 are reviewed for clear error.
- Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(d) (as amended in 2009), the stability inquiry requires consideration of both historical circumstances and reasonably anticipated future stability.
- A district court must explain a denial of extended summer parenting time for a noncustodial parent when the child is of sufficient age, so that appellate review is possible.
- A district court must explain a denial of interim child support and a denial of attorney’s fees; discretionary rulings must be supported by findings or reasoning adequate for meaningful review.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the custody allocation to Eric because the best-interests analysis, including a forward- and backward-looking stability assessment, was not clearly erroneous, but it required remand where the district court denied extended summer parenting time, interim child support, and attorney’s fees without adequate explanation.


Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, 825 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2012)