Analysis of Domestic Violence Presumption in Thomas v. Thomas Child Custody Case, Lecture notes of Reasoning

Download Analysis of Domestic Violence Presumption in Thomas v. Thomas Child Custody Case and more Lecture notes Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity! Filed JAN 2.3 2020 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2020 ND 18 _ Matthew Adam Thomas, Plaintiff and Appellant Vv. SummerLee Candy Thomas, Defendant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest No. 20190094 Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven L. Marquart, Judge. AFFIRMED, AS MODIFIED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice. Tasha M. Gahner, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief. 1 Thomas v. Thomas No. 20190094 McEvers, Justice. [¶1] In Thomas v. Thomas, 2019 ND 299, 936 N.W.2d 109, this Court affirmed a civil judgment in part and remanded with instructions while retaining jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3). After the district court made amended findings and conclusions in accordance with the instructions, Matthew Thomas argues there are additional errors in the amended findings and conclusions. We affirm, as modified, with instructions. [¶2] Matthew Thomas and SummerLee Thomas were married in 2008 and have two children, H.M.T. and C.M.T. In 2018, a divorce was initiated and following trial in February 2019, the district court issued a judgment, granting the parties joint residential responsibility of the children. Matthew Thomas appealed the judgment and argued the court erred in applying the best interest factors. Matthew Thomas argued factors (a) and (c) were not supported by the evidence. He also argued the court erred in applying factor (j) by not applying a pattern of domestic violence. He additionally argued the court erred by failing to include all of the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the children’s best interests. This Court affirmed the court’s finding on factors (a) and (c), but remanded with instructions for the court to further specify its reasoning on factor (j) and to include the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the best interests of the children. Thomas, 2019 ND 299, ¶¶ 7, 11, 14, 936 N.W.2d 109. I [¶3] Matthew Thomas argues the district court erred by finding there was domestic violence, but the violence was not a pattern that triggered the statutory presumption that the parent perpetrating domestic violence may not be awarded residential responsibility of the child. [¶4] A district court’s determination whether the domestic violence presumption is applicable under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) is a finding of fact which will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez,