## Facts

- John Daniel Lawrence and Tina Lucille Delkamp, never married, are the parents of a son born in 1992; Delkamp had custody under prior orders, with visitation to Lawrence and child-support obligations.
- Lawrence sought a change of custody or, alternatively, modification of visitation; Delkamp raised concerns about his behavior and sought a psychological evaluation.
- The parties stipulated to a domestic-violence assessment; the court treated the psychological-evaluation request as moot after the assessment.
- The district court found Lawrence committed domestic violence based on statements characterized as threats toward Delkamp and, at times, involving the child.
- The record reflected threats of future harm and hostile statements, with no evidence of physical injury or sexual offense.
- Based on the domestic-violence finding, the district court restricted Lawrence’s visitation to supervised visits at a designated facility and later awarded Delkamp $12,149.70 in attorney’s fees and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Lawrence “committed domestic violence” under North Dakota’s statutory definition.
2. Whether the supervised-visitation restriction must be reversed if the domestic-violence finding was erroneous and visitation redetermined.
3. Whether the attorney’s-fees and costs award, and Delkamp’s request for additional fees on cross-appeal, could stand where the fee award was tied to the domestic-violence finding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota held the district court’s domestic-violence finding was clearly erroneous.
- The court reversed the supervised-visitation order and remanded for a redetermination of visitation without relying on the erroneous domestic-violence finding.
- The court reversed the attorney’s-fees and costs award because it was predicated on the erroneous finding; Delkamp’s request for additional fees was not granted.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Domestic violence under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-01(2) requires physical harm/bodily injury/sexual activity compelled by force, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm (or similar immediate threat); non-imminent threats and verbal hostility, without more, do not satisfy the statute.
- A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when induced by an erroneous view of the law; misapplying the statutory definition can require reversal under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
- Visitation restrictions and fee awards that rest on a domestic-violence finding must be vacated when the predicate finding fails; on remand, visitation must be evaluated under the child’s best interests factors without the invalid presumption.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the domestic-violence finding because the evidence showed threats of future harm rather than fear of imminent physical harm, and it vacated the supervised-visitation restriction and attorney’s-fees award that depended on that finding, remanding for reconsideration under the best-interests framework.


Lawrence v. Delkamp, 620 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 2000)