## Facts

- Roland C. Riemers began a relationship with Jenese A. Peters-Riemers in 1995 while he was married to another woman and misrepresented his marital status.
- Jenese moved to North Dakota in 1996 at Roland’s invitation; Roland alternated living with Jenese and returning to live with his then-wife and children.
- The relationship involved conflict related to Roland’s extramarital affairs.
- The parties’ son, Johnathan, was born in 1997; Roland divorced his first wife in 1998 and married Jenese in 1999.
- The district court found Roland committed domestic violence, including serious physical assaults; it found Jenese’s physical responses occurred in self-defense.
- Jenese filed for divorce in 2000 alleging adultery, extreme cruelty, and irreconcilable differences.
- After a bench trial, the district court dissolved the marriage, awarded Jenese primary physical custody, ordered closely supervised visitation for Roland, set child support and spousal support, and divided marital property and debt.

## Issues

1. Whether a party has a constitutional right to a jury trial in a divorce action under the North Dakota Constitution.
2. Whether constitutional challenges to North Dakota visitation statutes could be considered when not raised in the district court.
3. Whether conducting the trial in Traill County, rather than a different location preferred by Roland, violated due process or required reversal.
4. Whether the district court erred by proceeding without a guardian ad litem or other separate representation for the child.
5. Whether the trial judge was biased or incompetent, depriving Roland of a fair trial.
6. Whether the district court clearly erred or abused its discretion in its domestic-violence findings and resulting custody, visitation, support, and property determinations.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the divorce judgment in all respects.
- It held there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in divorce proceedings because the constitutional jury guarantee preserves only the right as it existed when the constitution was adopted.
- It declined to consider Roland’s constitutional attacks on visitation statutes because they were not raised in the district court.
- It rejected challenges to the trial location as untimely and unsupported by a showing of prejudice or a due process violation.
- It found no abuse of discretion in proceeding without a guardian ad litem, emphasizing that Roland failed to pay the retainer for the previously appointed guardian.
- It found no record basis for judicial bias or incompetence; disagreement with rulings did not establish bias.
- It held the district court’s findings and discretionary determinations regarding domestic violence, custody, supervised visitation, support, and property division were supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- The state constitutional right to jury trial preserves the right as historically recognized at the time of constitutional adoption; it does not create a jury-trial right in equitable divorce proceedings.
- Constitutional challenges generally must be raised in the trial court to be reviewable on appeal; issues first asserted on appeal are waived.
- Objections to trial location/venue must be timely and must show prejudice to warrant relief.
- Appointment and continuation of a guardian ad litem in custody-related matters is discretionary; a party’s failure to comply with conditions related to the appointment (including payment obligations) may support proceeding without the guardian.
- Claims of judicial bias require record evidence; adverse rulings alone do not prove bias.
- Domestic-violence findings supported by the record may justify custody awards and restrictive or supervised visitation, and related support and property decisions are reviewed deferentially for clear error or abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a divorce judgment awarding the mother physical custody with closely supervised visitation for the father, holding there is no constitutional jury-trial right in divorce, unpreserved constitutional challenges are not reviewable on appeal, and the district court’s domestic-violence findings and financial and custody-related orders were supported by the evidence and within its discretion.


Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2002 ND 72, 644 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 2002)