## Facts

- Joel L. Leppert and Quinta R. Leppert married in 1984 and had five children between 1985 and 1991.
- Joel filed for divorce in November 1991.
- An interim order initially gave Joel temporary physical custody of all five children; an amended temporary order later gave Quinta temporary physical custody of the three youngest children, with the two oldest alternating physical custody bimonthly.
- A multi-day trial occurred in early 1993 with testimony from both parents, extended family members, teachers, and a court-appointed guardian ad litem (Dr. Robert Packard).
- The guardian ad litem recommended physical custody of all five children to Joel, with limited visitation to Quinta, warning that Quinta’s parenting was likely to be extremely dangerous to the children’s psychological and emotional health and could endanger their physical safety.
- Evidence focused on Quinta’s adherence to her father’s sect (Our Savior’s Church) and how its teachings—particularly a worldview dividing people into “God’s enemies” and the obedient—affected her parenting and the children’s development.
- The trial court entered a divorce judgment awarding physical custody of the three youngest children to Quinta; Joel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s award of physical custody of the three youngest children to Quinta was clearly erroneous under the best-interests-of-the-child standard.
2. Whether, and to what extent, evidence about a parent’s religiously motivated child-rearing practices may be considered when assessing the children’s welfare.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the custody award for the three youngest children and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the custody determination was clearly erroneous because the record, considered under the best-interests factors, left a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made.
- The court treated the guardian ad litem’s investigation and testimony as significant evidence that the trial court did not adequately account for in reaching a contrary custody result.
- The court distinguished between religious belief itself and evidence of concrete effects of related parenting practices on the children’s welfare, considering only the latter in the best-interests analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations are findings of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; reversal is warranted when the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake occurred.
- Custody must be determined by the children’s best interests and welfare, assessed under statutory best-interest factors.
- A court may not punish a parent for religious beliefs as such, but may consider credible evidence that parenting practices associated with those beliefs adversely affect the children’s emotional, psychological, or physical well-being.
- A guardian ad litem’s recommendation is not binding, but a trial court must meaningfully account for it when it is supported by substantial evidence relevant to the children’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the custody award to the mother for the three youngest children could not be sustained under the best-interests factors, given substantial evidence—including the guardian ad litem’s assessment and corroborating testimony—that her parenting practices posed serious risks to the children’s development and safety.


Leppert v. Leppert, 519 N.W.2d 287 (N.D. 1994)