## Facts

- In 2014, Keaton O’Hara and Keanna Schneider had a daughter together.
- By December 2015, O’Hara and Schneider were no longer romantically involved but entered into a parenting-plan agreement that allocated childcare responsibilities and parenting time.
- In 2016, O’Hara punched Schneider and was charged with aggravated assault.
- Schneider obtained a domestic-violence restraining order against O’Hara.
- Schneider moved to modify the parenting plan to require that O’Hara’s parenting time be supervised.
- The district court held a hearing on Schneider’s motion but excluded evidence of O’Hara’s violent conduct occurring before the parties entered the parenting-plan agreement.
- After the hearing, the district court denied Schneider’s request to require supervised parenting time, reasoning that O’Hara’s violence had been directed at Schneider rather than the child.
- Schneider appealed, and the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court misapplied the law and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, the district court held a second evidentiary hearing.
- At the second hearing, O’Hara submitted an affidavit from his counselor stating O’Hara had received anger-management treatment.
- O’Hara also submitted affidavits from others describing his close relationship with his daughter.
- After the second hearing, the district court found the assault charge was a material change in circumstances but concluded that allowing O’Hara to continue unsupervised parenting time was in the child’s best interests.
- Schneider appealed again, arguing the district court should not have conducted a second evidentiary hearing and should not have relied on O’Hara’s anger-management evidence in deciding to continue unsupervised parenting time.

## Issues

1. After remand, did the district court err by conducting a second evidentiary hearing and taking additional evidence when reconsidering Schneider’s motion to modify the parenting plan?
2. Did the district court err in determining that, even after domestic violence against the child’s mother, continued unsupervised parenting time was in the child’s best interests?

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not violate the remand order by holding a second evidentiary hearing and receiving additional evidence to make the findings required under the correct legal standard.
- The court upheld the district court’s determination that the assault charge was a material change in circumstances and that unsupervised parenting time could continue based on the best-interests findings made on the post-remand record.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a lower court acted within the scope of a remand is reviewed as a question of law.
- Decisions on parenting-plan modification and best-interests findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
- A parenting plan may be modified only if the moving party shows a material change in circumstances and the requested change is in the child’s best interests.
- Domestic violence between parents is relevant to the child’s welfare and must be weighed in the best-interests analysis; it is not irrelevant simply because the violence was not directed at the child.
- When an appellate court remands for application of the correct legal framework and for adequate findings, the district court may receive additional evidence as needed to make the required findings, unless the remand order limits the record.
- In assessing best interests, the court may consider evidence of a parent’s treatment efforts (including anger-management counseling) along with other evidence bearing on the child’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the post-remand order continuing O’Hara’s unsupervised parenting time because the district court acted within the remand’s scope in holding a second evidentiary hearing, properly treated the assault and restraining order as a material change in circumstances, and made best-interests findings that were not clearly erroneous on the record developed after remand.


O'Hara v. Schneider, 897 N.W.2d 326 (2017)