Leading Women for Shared Parenting

An International Child Advocacy Organization

North Dakota Child Custody Analysis

August 2017
 Page 2
Founding Principle of US Judicial System
US Supreme Court Building

North Dakota Constitution

Article I, Section 22 -- All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

Article I, Section 21 -- No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered,
revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or
immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.

North Dakota Supreme Court

There are, however, some classifications which the courts will scrutinize more carefully, and in most cases will
be found to violate the constitution. An example of such a classification is one in which the government treats
individuals differently because of their gender. One such situation involve the transfer of female prisoners out of
state but the incarceration of male prisoners in the state. Classifications based on sex are inherently suspect.
State ex rel Olson v. Maxwell, 259 NW2d 621 (ND 1977)
 Page 3
Family Law, Described by North Dakotans
"Gender issues are alive and well and young moms can do pretty well at shutting dads
out," says Stebbins. "Typically men are trapped because they have to work to maintain
the child's standard of living but if they're working 10 hours per day the wife can say he
can't take care of the kids. (Interview)
Jackie Stebbins, Esq. (Stebbins Mulloy Attorneys at Law, LLC Bismarck, ND)

Typically, child custody arrangements give one parent sole custody (usually the
mother) and the other parent (usually the father) visitation rights. (Article)

Mike McFeeley (Columnist - Inforum Communications Fargo, ND)

He said many judges don't understand that shared parenting is an alternative and
resort to standard arrangements, like every other weekend (Interview)
Jason McLean, Esq. (Gjesdahl Law - Fargo, ND)

I know Kelly [Senator Armstrong] likes the idea and concept of starting with joint, but
he absolutely understands that it has to be workable. While we may disagree with him
about starting at joint maybe even informally and surely with a presumption, its
nice for us all to know where hes coming from. (Open Records Request)
Jackie Stebbins, Esq. (Stebbins Mulloy Attorneys at Law, LLC Bismarck, ND)
 Page 4
Shared Parenting Research & Legislative History
In 2012, Arizona implemented laws encouraging judges to maximize the time children spend
with both of their parents. A follow up poll shows a majority of attorneys now tell fathers they
have an 80-90% chance of having equal parenting of their children.

In 2014 110 World experts endorse shared parenting as best for children of all ages.

In 2014, South Dakota passed a law allowing children to spend more time with both sides of
their family after separation or divorce.

In 2015 Utah implemented laws providing a minimum of 40% time with each parent for children
whose families experience separation.

In 2015 a National Center for State Courts survey found belief in unequal justice is widespread
and the top groups treated differently were the poor, African Americans and divorced fathers.

In 2016 Missouri passed a shared parenting law allowing children time with both parents.

In 2017 Kentucky unanimously passed a shared parenting law in temporary orders.

In 2017 25 States considered shared parenting bills throughout the U.S.

In 2017, the International Conference on Shared Parenting determines all 55 English language
peer reviewed child custody papers support shared parenting. None oppose.
 Page 5
North Dakota History Over Same Period
2012
Walsh County passes Shared Parenting ballot initiative vote 66% to 33%.
2014
Statewide Shared Parenting initiative placed on Ballot (Measure 6)
Research based Shared Parenting television commercials air on North Dakota to educate public
First 60 second spot
First 30 second spot, Second 30 second spot, third 30 second spot
Poll finds Measure 6 leading with 44% in favor, 30% opposed and 26% undecided
State Bar Association of North Dakota (SBAND) forms front group: Keeping Kids First
Funds an opposition advertising campaign with $70,000 from SBAND
Staffed with 10 SBAND members (Including Tony Weiler)
Uses SBAND email domain; keepingkidsfirst@sband.org
SBAND Denies Any Wrongdoing
SBAND claims theyre spending $70,000 to defeat measure 6 to be in court less
& make less money
Shared Parenting Ballot Initiative (Measure 6) Fails
2015
SBAND sued for misusing dues in $70,000 funding of front group Keeping Kids First
Despite SBAND previously denying wrongdoing, SBAND President Joe Wetch states We worked closely with
SBAND staff and our lead counsel, Randy Bakke, toward an early settlement of the case as very little facts were in
dispute.
2017
North Dakota House of Representatives passes shared parenting bill 77% to 23%
North Dakota Senate passes shared parenting bill 60% to 40%
SBAND Opposes the legislation
SBAND Open Records request produces revealing expos of SBAND members actions & beliefs
After House & Senate Conference Committee, House passes amended bill 77% to 23%
After House & Senate Conference Committee, Shared Parenting legislation fails in Senate 28% to 72%
SBAND sued for alleged violation of North Dakota open records law
 Page 6

North Dakota Data From the State

Child Support Program Database
 Page 7
Child Support Data: Only 6.3% Equal Parenting

As of February 13, 2017, of 26,000 Cases, 1,658 (6.3%) Had Equal Parenting, Up
from 400 Cases (1.5%) in 2011. Some Touted That (400% Increase) as Progress
 Page 8

North Dakota Data from the Court

Administrative Office Database
 Page 9
Raw Data Obtained From Court Administrator

Sorting the Raw Data, Results Were Obtained for Both Specific Counties and
Judicial Districts in North Dakota
 Page 10

Micro Validation of the Data Left Questions

Eight Cases Were Chosen at Random from Burleigh County

Case Files Were Researched to Confirm the Accuracy of the Reported Custody
Determination

Three of the Eight Investigated Cases were Found to Not be a Joint Physical
Custody Arrangement

One Decision Was Recorded as a Court Decision but was Actually a Stipulation

Available Resources Prohibited a More In Depth Validation of the Data

Micro Validation:
Suggests Need for Audit / Updated Procedures to Ensure Accuracy
Suggests the Number of Cases Reported as Joint May Be Overstated

The Full Detail on the Validation of Cases Reported as Joint in the North Dakota
Court System is included in the Appendix
The Micro Validation Suggests the Need for a Larger Audit as Its Possible Shared
Parenting Cases are Being Significantly Overstated by the North Dakota Court
 Page 11

How Cases Are Being Determined

A Significant Majority of Cases Are Determined by Stipulation

 Page 12

Number of Cases & Custody Determinations

Number of divorces impacting children has Wife most often is awarded primary
risen during the time which data was custody
obtained
Fathers have <10% chance at primary
Number of divorces impacting children custody
grew 3.65% per year over the period to a
new total of 1,100 cases annually At 38% of all awards, shared parenting is
currently at the highest level of the time
Divorce impacts approximately 2,000 period from which data was obtained
children in North Dakota annually
Number of Cases with Children has Increased with Wife Most Often Obtaining
Primary Custody
 Page 13

Significant Variations by Whos Deciding Case

Over 70% of Court determined cases award Over 44% of cases determined by stipulation
wife primary custody award shared parenting
Only 44% of cases determined by Only 10% of cases determined by courts award
stipulation award wife primary custody shared parenting
Trend of Court awards to mothers has Trend towards shared parenting in stipulated
increased substantially over the period cases is increasing (especially since 2015)
examined
Trend towards shared parenting in court
determined cases is decreasing
If Mothers Dont Agree to Shared Parenting, Children Arent Likely to Receive
Substantial Time With Each of Their Parents
 Page 14

Court Cases Diverge, Stipulated Cases Converge

Ballot
Initiative

Court now decides in for mother in 70% of Stipulation trend to shared parenting since Nov
cases 2014 initiative
Mother trend increasing over period examined Shared parenting now stipulated with same
frequency as mother custody
Courts ordering shared parenting about as
often as father custody; in <15% of cases Increase in shared parenting stipulations comes
with reciprocal decline in primary mother
Trends associated with courts ordering both custody
shared parenting & father custody are falling
Recent Momentum Toward Shared Parenting Isnt Driven by North Dakota Courts.
Mothers have a 5 to 1 Advantage (70% vs 14%) Over Fathers in Cases Decided
by North Dakota Courts
 Page 15

Has Advocacy / Legislative Push Mattered?

110 Experts 2014 2016

Endorse Shared Ballot Legislative
Parenting Initiative Bill

Publication of the Overwhelming Research Favoring Shared Parenting Along with

Legislative Initiatives May Have Influenced Mothers, Lawyers, GALs & Others
 Page 16
Impact of Ballot Initiative & Legislative Bill

110 Experts 2014 2016

Endorse Ballot Legislative
Shared Parenting Initiative Bill

Stipulated Cases Ending in Joint Custody Jump 29 Percent to Highest Level of

Period Examined. Were Stipulations Impacted by Ballot Initiative & Legislative Bill?
 Page 17

Yet Court Ordered Joint Custody is Falling

McLean said the proposal came out of

discussions with experts at the task force, which
was created after the 2014 election. He said many
judges don't understand that shared parenting is
an alternative and resort to standard
arrangements, like every other weekend.
 Page 18

Shared Parenting: Last Resort for ND Courts

In five of seven years, North Dakota Courts actually awarded more primary
father custody than shared parenting
Trends for both shared parenting & primary father custody are falling
(primary mother is rising)
Both primary mother custody & primary father custody are awarded more
often than shared parenting by North Dakota District Court Judges
North Dakota Courts Seemingly Promote An Arena Pitting Parents Against Each
Other (Parent VERSUS Parent) in a Contest For Their Children
 Page 19

Questions
To what degree is the Courts favoritism to primary mother custody
(currently >70%) impacting stipulated cases? Would Percentage of
Cases Stipulated to Joint Custody go Even Higher?

Do North Dakota Judges retain the unsupported belief that legal

conflict prohibits shared parenting? How are Judges trained?

Did publication of the overwhelming research favoring shared

parenting, along with the 2014 research based television
commercials, cause the significant upturn in shared parenting
(from 34% to 44% of all stipulated cases) between 2015 and 2017?

Why shouldnt North Dakota be running Public Service

Announcements (PSAs) to further educate the public on the
overwhelming research showing shared parenting produces the
best outcome for children?
 Page 20

North Dakota County Results

(Data From Court Administrative
Office)
 Page 21

Summary: Review of Eight Largest Counties

2017 Awards of Joint Custody range from 28% (Grand Forks) to 58.6%
(Morton) of all cases

2017 Awards of primary Mother Custody range from 24% (Morton) to

53% (Ward) of all cases

2017 Awards of primary Father Custody range from 0% (Stutsman) to 16%

(Grand Forks) of all cases

In 2017, two Counties finalize judgments with significantly more shared

parenting than primary mother custody; Morton (34.5% point gap) and
Stutsman (14.3% point gap)

In 2017, two Counties finalize judgments with significantly less shared

parenting than primary mother custody; Stark (22.2% point gap) and
Ward (20.5% point gap)
A Childs Chance of Spending Significant Time with Both Parents Seems Highly
Correlated to in Which County Their Familys Divorce is Filed
 Page 22

Glaring Variances Exist Between Counties

How Often Children Receive Shared Parenting Varies by Over 100% Between
Counties. Potential Causes Include Judges, Attorneys, Investigators and GALs
 Page 23

2010 Census: Race, Income, Family & Education

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Stark Morton Cass Ward Grand Forks Burleigh Williams Stutsman

(1) Residents # 24,199 # 25,303 # 149,778 # 61,675 # 66,861 # 81,308 # 22,398 # 8,391

RACE
(2) White 95.2% 95.8% 91.7% 90.3% 90.3% 93.0% 92.1% 95.6%
(3) African American 0.8% 0.2% 2.3% 2.5% 2.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7%
(4) Native American 1.0% 2.4% 1.2% 2.6% 2.5% 4.2% 4.0% 1.4%
(5) Asian 1.2% 0.2% 2.4% 0.9% 1.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
(6) Other 1.8% 1.4% 2.4% 3.7% 3.3% 1.7% 3.2% 1.8%

FAMILY
(7) Number of Households # 10,085 # 11,289 # 63,899 # 25,029 # 27,417 # 33,976 # 9,293 # 8,931
(8) % with Children Under 18 27.3% 30.9% 27.8% 30.6% 26.6% 29.0% 28.5% 25.6%
(9) % with Married Couples 49.8% 53.1% 42.9% 49.9% 42.8% 50.2% 49.8% 47.3%
(10) % with Female Head of Household 7.4% 9.3% 8.3% 8.4% 9.1% 8.7% 7.7% 7.5%
(11) Average family size # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.9 # 2.8
(12) Median Age 38.3 Yrs 39.3 Yrs 31.5 Yrs 32.7 Yrs 29.7 Yrs 37.3 Yrs 39.0 Yrs 42.0 Yrs

INCOME
(13) Median Income $ 49,536 $ 50,591 $ 47,600 $ 48,793 $ 44,242 $ 53,465 $ 55,396 $ 44,620
(14) Family Median Income $ 62,560 $ 62,713 $ 68,858 $ 60,361 $ 65,804 $ 71,103 $ 67,875 $ 60,171
(15) Per Capita Income $ 25,282 $ 25,303 $ 28,184 $ 25,326 $ 24,276 $ 28,874 $ 29,153 $ 23,307

EDUCATION
(16) High School Graduate or Higher 90.0% 91.6% 94.9% 93.0% 92.8% 93.5% 90.7% 89.0%
(17) Bachelors Degree or Higher 24.3% 25.9% 36.8% 25.8% 33.0% 34.0% 21.0% 23.6%

MEMO:
(18) 2017 Joint Custody Determinations 30.6% 58.6% 40.3% 32.4% 28.0% 42.1% 41.9% 50.0%
(19) Avg Annual Number of Cases # 56 # 42 # 232 # 129 # 91 # 158 # 32 # 29

North Dakota has a Largely Homogenous Population, Yet Shared Parenting

Varies Significantly by County (109% between Grand Forks & Morton)
 Page 24

Joint Custody by County; Seven Year Trend

Grand Forks;
Consistently
Positive Trends Among Lowest
in both Morton Shared
& Cass Counties Parenting
Determinations

Stutsman County Averaged 44.5% Joint Custody Over the Period. Grand Forks
Averaged only 24.9% During the Same Period
 Page 25

Comparison of Neighboring
Counties

Vs.
 Page 26

Census Data on Morton & Burleigh Counties

Two of the five most populous counties in North Dakota
Share a border; geographically in the same portion of the state
Both border Bismarck, the second largest city and state capital
According to the 2010 census:
 Page 27

Wife & Joint Custody - Morton vs Burleigh

110 Experts 110 Experts

Endorse Endorse
Shared Parenting Shared Parenting

Burleigh County wife primary custody
increased slightly during period
Morton County wife primary custody
halved during period
What change among Morton County
families explains the steady decline from
2012 to 2017?
Burleigh County joint custody statistically
unchanged during period
Morton County joint custody almost tripled
during period
What is so different about Burleigh County
families to explain why their children
receive shared parenting less often?

Should Children in Burleigh County Have Almost a 40% Lower Chance at

Meaningful Time with Both Parents Than Their Neighbors in Morton County?
 Page 28

Stipulated Determinations - Morton vs Burleigh

Stipulated wife custody halved in Morton Stipulated joint custody in Morton County
County during the period almost tripled during the period
Stipulated wife custody increased slightly Stipulated joint custody was statistically
in Burleigh County during the period unchanged in Burleigh County during the
period
Burleigh County residents have a 75%
higher chance at stipulating to wife Morton County children have a 40% higher
custody than Morton County residents chance of having joint custody stipulated
than children in Burleigh County
Why is the Trend in Stipulated Cases so Different From Two Bordering Counties
both Comprised of Bismarck Residents?
 Page 29

Comparison of Counties in Same

Senate District
District 36 Republican Senator Kelly Armstrong
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
&
Partner, Reichert Armstrong Law; Grand Forks, North Dakota
 Page 30

Census Comparison: Stark & Morton Counties

The fifth & sixth most populous Counties
Share a border; geographically in the same portion of the state
A portion of both counties comprise Senate District 36
According to the 2010 Census:

Vs.
 Page 31

Populations Same, Yet Trends Very Different

Wife primary custody more than doubled in Incidence of Shared Parenting in Morton County
Stark County during the period almost tripled during the period
Wife primary custody more than halved in Stark County trend is away from shared parenting
Morton County during the period
Joint custody in Morton County now almost
Wife primary custody in Stark County now more double that of Stark County
than double that of Morton County
Majority of Senator Armstrongs constituents
Whats changed in both these Counties to cause receive half the chance at shared parenting as
such diverging trends? their neighbors in Morton County
Children in Stark County are Half as Likely to Have Meaningful With Both Parents
Than Their Neighbors in Morton County. Both are in Senate District 36.
 Page 32
Equal Justice Under The Law?
Stark County, ND Morton County, ND

Get Divorced in Antelope & Have a 30.6% Get Divorced in Hebron & Have a 58.6%
Chance of Shared Parenting Chance of Shared Parenting
Population, Race, Family Structure, Income & Education Are Extremely Similar
Between Stark & Morton Counties. Why the Extreme Custody Difference?
 Page 33

Impact on Military Families

 Page 34
SBAND Member Characterizes Military Children
Internal communications between
SBAND members included the
following characterization of Military
Children:

At times I have worked with military families where the

children live on one post/base for a year or so, then move
with the military to another post/base and then a year or
so move again. In talking to those children, they cannot
remember any of their
friends or experiences in the
prior postings. I have
found that most of them
are lonely people and do
not fit well into society.

When Such an Attitude was Communicated by Practitioners Advising on Custody

Determinations, Examining Counties Containing Military Bases Became Necessary
 Page 35

Family Court Impact on Military Families

Counties with military bases in North Dakota were
reviewed, including:
Ward County, home of Minot Air Force Base, &
Grand Forks County, home of Grand Forks Air
Force Base
The same analysis was completed on these
counties as other largest counties examined in North Dakota

The data did not provide means to identify cases involving

solely military personnel, so the entire county was examined

The results of each county were then compared to the

statewide average for:
Wife Custody, and
Joint Custody
Military Counties Have Significantly Less Shared Parenting Than the Statewide
Average, and Far Less Than the Best Counties in North Dakota
 Page 36

Wife Custody - Military Counties vs State Avg

The trend for primary wife custody is
slowly falling in Grand Forks County
In every year but one, wife primary
custody was higher in Grand Forks
County than the statewide average
The trend for primary wife custody is
slowly falling in Ward County
In every year, wife primary custody
was significantly higher in Ward
County that the statewide average

Military Counties in North Dakota Have Significantly Higher Primary Wife Custody
Than the Statewide Average. Are Military Families Being Treated Differently?
 Page 37

Joint Custody - Military Counties vs State Avg

Throughout the period, Grand Forks
County had statistically lower joint
custody than the statewide average
Despite overwhelming research, the
trend for joint custody is essentially
flat in Grand Forks County
In every year but one, Ward County
had statistically lower joint custody
than the statewide average
The trend for joint custody is slowly
rising in Ward County

Military Counties in North Dakota Have Significantly Lower Joint Custody Than
the Statewide Average. Are Military Families Being Treated Differently?
 Page 38

North Dakota Judicial District

Results (Data From Court
Administrative Office)
 Page 39

North Dakota is Divided Into 8 Judicial Districts

North
Central Northeast
District District

Northwest Northeast
District Central
District
East
Central
District

Southwest South Southeast

District Central District
District

County Data Was Consolidated to Review the Judicial Districts Used by the
District Court System to Process Cases
 Page 40

Summary; Review of Judicial Districts

Of The Parent Investigators and GALs Listed on the Court Roster, A
Significant Majority Practice in Districts With Vastly Different Results.

In 7 of 8 Districts (North Central exception) there is a Positive Correlation

Between Court Determined Mother Custody and Overall Mother Custody.

Children in Southwest (24.4% Shared Parenting) and Northeast Districts

(29.6% Shared Parenting) Receive Significantly Less Time with Both
Parents.

Children in the Southeast (48.1% Shared Parenting) and South Central

(43.9% Shared Parenting) Receive Significantly More Time with Both
Parents.

Despite Overwhelming Research that Shared Parenting is Best for Children,

it is Actually Falling in the Southwest Judicial District.
 Page 41

Regional Joint Custody Varies Significantly

Are Families in These Districts Really So Different as to Justify Such Varying

Results? Or Are Other Influences Causing the Wide Variance in Results?
 Page 42

Joint Custody; Seven Year Trend

Despite Overwhelming
Research Shared
Parenting is best for
Children, It is Actually
Decreasing in the
Southwest Judicial
District North Central &
Northeast Central
have Consistently Low
Shared Parenting
Determinations

Avg Annual
112 230 243 69 42 70 135 93
# of Cases

Although the Statewide Trend for Shared Parenting is Slowly Increasing, Shared
Parenting Remains a Minority and is Actually Decreasing in the Southwest District
 Page 43

Wife Custody; Seven Year Trend

North Central &
Northeast Central
Have Consistently High
Wife Custody
Determinations

Wife Custody Experienced a Sharp Increase in the Southwest District. In 2017, the
Statewide Range Ranged from 57.8% (Southwest) to 25% (Northeast)
 Page 44

2017 Stipulated Joint Custody Variances

Do Fathers Want to
Spend Time with Their
Children 80% Less
Often in the
Southwest District?

A Significant Divergence Exists in How Cases are Settled Amongst a

Homogenous Population & a Supposedly Uniform System. Why?
 Page 45

Family Law Influencers / Advisors

 Page 46
Family Law Section: Female & Grand Forks Influenced

Family Law section of SBAND is 70% female

40% of the family law section membership is from Grand Forks
One member is from Grafton, 40 minutes from Grand Forks
Reichert, Armstrong attorney Challis Williams is a section member
Grand Forks had lowest joint parenting (28%) of North Dakotas eight largest counties in 2017
No section member represents Fargo, the largest city & only one is from Bismarck, the Capital
The Family Law Section has Highest Female membership percentage of any SBAND Section

A Higher Percentage of Men Actually Serve in the Women Lawyers Section of

SBAND
 Page 47

Family Law Gender Gap

Parent Investigator Associates Degree, five years experience or a forty hour training program.
Eighteen hours specialized training (unless forty hour program completed), Eighteen hours
training every three years (Court Administrator must provide regular training programs).

Guardian ad Litem Must be a licensed attorney, Eighteen hours of training & eighteen hours of
training every three years.

Parent Coordinator - Associates Degree & two years experience or a Bachelors Degree. Twelve
hours training, 40 hours domestic relations training, eighteen hours training every three years
(Court Administrator must provide regular training programs).
Of Those Listed on the State Court Roster; Investigators are 82% Female, GALs are
74% Female & Coordinators are 100% Female
 Page 48

PIs & GALs: Largely Same Between Districts

Page 1 Page 2
Southwest South Central Southeast Southwest South Central Southeast
Name Name Name Name Name Name

Andrews, Krista L. Andrews, Krista L. Andrews, Krista L. Landis, Joshua Landis, Joshua Landis, Joshua

Ankers, Alisha Ankers, Alisha Ankers, Alisha Larson, Kimberlie Larson, Kimberlie Larson, Kimberlie

Balstad, Brian Balaban, Hannah Balstad, Brian Lee-Eckes, Melissa Lee-Eckes, Melissa Lee-Eckes, Melissa

Barron, Sarah Balstad, Brian Barron, Sarah Lucke, Eva A.

Briese, Janice Briese, Janice Briese, Janice Maroney, Daniel R. Jr.

Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee
Carlson, Christopher Carlson, Christopher
McLean, Jason McLean, Jason McLean, Jason
Christianson, Laurie Christianson, Laurie Christianson, Laurie
Michael, S. Michele Michael, S. Michele Michael, S. Michele
Doll, Rebecca
Moe, Jordan
duCharme, Leah J. duCharme, Leah J. duCharme, Leah J.
Murphy, Paul Murphy, Paul Murphy, Paul
Edland, Karen A. Edland, Karen A. Edland, Karen A.
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D.
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D.
Oliger, Barbara Oliger, Barbara Oliger, Barbara
Foss, Lesley Foss, Lesley Foss, Lesley
Oster, Julie Oster, Julie Oster, Julie
Gahner, Tasha M. Gahner, Tasha M. Gahner, Tasha M.
Parvey, Shannon E. Parvey, Shannon E. Parvey, Shannon E.
Garrity, Patricia E. Garrity, Patricia E. Garrity, Patricia E.
Rebel, Katelynn Rebel, Katelynn Rebel, Katelynn
Gustafson, Amber Gustafson, Amber Gustafson, Amber
Redmann, Krisin
Hahn, Christopher P.,
Schull, Diane Schull, Diane Schull, Diane
Ph.D.
Humphrey, Bonnie Humphrey, Bonnie Humphrey, Bonnie Simburger, Shelly Isaacs Simburger, Shelly Isaacs Simburger, Shelly Isaacs
Paradis Paradis Paradis Strang, Susan
Jacobson, Brenda Jacobson, Brenda Jacobson, Brenda Temanson, Paul A. Temanson, Paul A. Temanson, Paul A.
Johnson, Carol E. Torgerson, Linda Hurst Torgerson, Linda Hurst Torgerson, Linda Hurst
Johnson, Francine Johnson, Francine Johnson, Francine Weerts,Melinda Hansen

Johnson, Randall A. West, Jessica

Kiland, Kristy PsyD Kiland, Kristy, PsyD 24.4% 43.9% 48.1%

Kohlmeyer, Joan E. 2017 Joint Parenting Percentage of Total Cases

Of 38 Practitioners in Southwest & South Central, 31 Practice in Both Districts.

Of 44 Practitioners in South Central & Southeast, 33 Practice in Both Districts.
 Page 49

Conclusions & Recommendations

 Page 50

Baselining North Dakota Family Law

A Management Study Proposed in HB1392, Was Rejected by the Senate

This Analysis Should Serve the North Dakota Legislature as a Baseline of the Results of
Current North Dakota Family Laws from Which Future Progress Can be Measured
 Page 51

Conclusions
North Dakota counties are quite uniform over race, family structure,
income and education, yet, significant variances in custody
determinations exist between counties, as well as districts, which runs
contrary to the state constitutional language

Its highly unlikely similar cases will generate similar results statewide

Most parent investigators & GAL's practice in multiple counties. They

are unlikely causes for the unexplained variability in custody awards

Research on shared parenting is reaching / influencing some judges

but not others, illustrated by the Court determined award trend

Sharing research in popular media may be impacting mothers / PI's /

GALs, illustrated by the stipulated award trend

Shared parenting legislation remains a critical need for North Dakotas

children
 Page 52

Recommendations
Ensure The State Bar Association of North Dakotas (SBAND) Influence on Custody Law
Is Transparent Rather Than Covert

Conduct Review of Judicial Educational Materials, Then Re-Train Judges on Current

Child Custody Research
Conflict Shouldnt Negate Shared Parenting
Shared Parenting Produces the Best Outcome for Children

Conduct Review of Continuing Educational Materials, Then Re-Train Parenting

Investigators, GALs & Parent Coordinators on Current Child Custody Research

Require Mandatory Training of Family Law Attorneys to Ensure they are Current on
Child Custody Research

Pass Legislation For A Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting, Allowing Children

Meaningful Time with Both Engaged & Capable Parents Post Separation or Divorce

Why Shouldnt the State be Running Public Service Announcements to Educate the
Public that Shared Parenting Produces the Best Outcome for Children?

Require State Reporting on Shared Parenting Progress Annually

 Page 53

APPENDIX
 Page 54

North Dakota Results by District

(Data From Administrative Office of
the Court)
 Page 55

Northeast Central District, North Dakota

Consistently, One of the Two Lowest Districts in the Percent of Cases

Resulting in Shared Parenting
Joint Custody Rose Anemically Over the Period Examined
Comprised of only Grand Forks and Nelson Counties
Grand Forks County, 3rd Largest in State, Was Consistently Well Below State
Average in Percent of Cases Resulting in Shared Parenting
Judges Donald Hager, Jon Jensen, Jason McCarthy, Lolita Romanick and John
Thelen
 Page 56

East Central District, North Dakota

Comprised of Steele, Traill and Cass Counties

Stipulated Joint Custody on Upward Trend Since 2014 (When 110 World
Experts Endorsed Shared Parenting)
Trend Toward Primary Mother Custody Increased Anemically Over the Period
Mothers Favored from Primary Custody at a Rate of Over 7 Times that of
Fathers
Judges Norman Anderson, Susan Bailey, Douglas Herman, John Irby, Steven
Marquart, Steven McCullough, Thomas Olson, Frank Racek and Wade Webb
 Page 57

Northwest District, North Dakota

Comprised of Williams, McKenzie and Divide Counties

Joint Custody Rose Slightly During the Period
Low Number of Court Determined Cases Made the Data Unreliable for Trend
Analysis
Mothers Favored for Primary Custody on Average Five Times that of Fathers
2017 Data Shows a Significant Drop in Shared Parenting from 2016 Levels
Judges Daniel El-Dweek, Paul Jacobson, Benjamen Johnson, Joshua Rustad, Robin
Schmidt and Kirsten Sjue
 Page 58

North Central District, North Dakota

Consistently, One of the Two Lowest Districts in the Percent of Cases

Resulting in Shared Parenting
Court Ordered Wife Primary Custody Increased Dramatically Over the Period
Examined
Joint Custody Rose Anemically Over the Period Examined
Contains Ward County Which Consistently was Significantly Below the
Statewide Average for Awarding Shared Parenting
Judges Todd Cresap, Richard Hagar, Gary Lee, Stacy Louser and Douglas Mattson
 Page 59

Southwest District, North Dakota

Despite Overwhelming Research, Shared Parenting is Actually Falling in the

Southwest District
Both 2016 & 2017 Custody Determinations Placed the Southwest District as the
Lowest Percent of Joint Custody Statewide
Mothers Favored for Primary Custody at Increase Rates over the Period, Ranging
Between 6 and 10 Times that of Father Custody in 2015 2017
Both 2016 and 2017 Had Mother Custody More Than Two Times Shared Parenting

Judges Rhonda Ehlis, James Gion, Dann Greenwood and William Herauf
 Page 60

South Central District, North Dakota

Consistently Among the Top Districts with both Highest Joint Custody and
Lowest Mother Custody of the Eight Judicial Districts
Includes Morton County Which has Significantly Increase Shared Parenting
Determinations since 2014 Endorsement of 110 Experts
Seven Year Trend Towards Shared Parenting Increased Substantially Over the
Period

Judges Sonna Anderson, Cynthia Feland, John Grinsteiner, Gail Hagerty, Bruce
Haskell, James Hill, David Reich, Bruce Romanick and Thomas Schneider
 Page 61

Southeast District, North Dakota

Consistently the District with both Highest Joint Custody and Lowest Mother
Custody of the Eight Judicial Districts
Contains Stutsman County
Awarded Joint Custody in 2017 in 48.1% of Cases. The Highest In North Dakota.
Primary Wife Custody Trend Fell Significantly During the Period Examined
In both 2016 & 2017, Joint Custody Awarded More Often Than Primary Mother
Custody
Judges Mark Blumer, Bradley Cruff
John Greenwood, James Hovey, Troy LeFevre Daniel Narum and Jay Schmitz
 Page 62

Northeast District, North Dakota

Contains None of the Eight Largest Counties In North Dakota

Joint Custody Rose Slightly During the Period Examined
Mothers Favored for Primary Custody at a Rate of Between 6 and 10 Times
that of Fathers Over the Period Examined
Trend of Courts Awarding Primary Mother Custody Increased Over the
Period Examined
Judges Anthony Swain Benson, Laurie Fontaine, Donovan Foughty, M Richard
Geiger and Lonnie Olson
 Page 63

Parenting Investigators & Guardian

Ad Litems by District (Data From
Administrative Office of Court
Roster)
 Page 64

East Central District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Anderson, Barbara X Female Klein, Vickie X Female
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Kohlmeyer, Joan E. X Female
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Balstad, Brian X X Male Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Barron, Sarah X X Female Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Brazil, Tressie C. X X Female
Longtin, Deanna F. X X Female
Briese, Janice X Female
Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee X X Female
Brock, Terence X Male
McLean, Jason X X Male
Christenson, Jennifer X Female
Michael, S. Michele X Female
Christianson, Laurie X Female
Moe, Jordan X Male
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female
Murphy, Paul X X Male
Edland, Karen A. X Female
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male
Oliger, Barbara X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female
Oster, Julie X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female
Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female
Pladson, DeAnn X X Female
Hushka, Kristen A X X Female
Prudhomme, Rachel X Female
Gjesdahl, Michael X X Male
Gustafson, Amber X X Female Rebel, Katelynn X Female

Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Schull, Diane X Female

Jacobson, Brenda X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female

Johnson, Carol E. X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male

Johnson, Francine X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female

Johnston, Jacey X X Female Weerts,Melinda Hansen X X Female
Kiland, Kristy PsyD X Female West, Jessica X X Female

49 Practitioners - Investigators are 84.8% Female; GALs are 76.9% Female

 Page 65

North Central District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Ankers, Alisha X X Female LeMay, Jeanne X Female
Balstad, Brian X X Male Lucke, Eva A. X Female
Briese, Janice X Female Maroney, Daniel R. Jr. X Male
Carlson, Christopher X X Male McLean, Jason X X Male
Christianson, Laurie X Female Michael, S. Michele X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female Murphy, Paul X X Male
Edland, Karen A. X Female Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male Oliger, Barbara X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female Oster, Julie X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female Prudhomme, Rachel X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female Rebel, Katelynn X Female
Hamnes, Launee Lawyer X Female Schull, Diane X Female
Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female
Jacobson, Brenda X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Landis, Joshua X Male Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female
Larson, Kimberlie X X Female West, Jessica X X Female

36 Practitioners - Investigators are 79.4% Female; GALs are 70.6% Female

 Page 66

Northeast District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Johnson, Francine X Female

Ankers, Alisha X X Female Johnston, Jacey X X Female

Balstad, Brian X X Male Landis, Joshua X Male

Barron, Sarah X X Female Larson, Kimberlie X X Female

Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Briese, Janice X Female
McLean, Jason X X Male
Christenson, Jennifer X Female
Michael, S. Michele X Female
Christianson, Laurie X Female
Murphy, Paul X X Male
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Edland, Karen A. X Female
Oliger, Barbara X Female
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male
Oster, Julie X X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female
Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female
Prudhomme, Rachel X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female
Rebel, Katelynn X Female
Gjesdahl, Michael L. X X Male
Schull, Diane X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female
Hamnes, Launee Lawyer X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female
Jacobson, Brenda X Female Weerts,Melinda Hansen X X Female
Johnson, Carol E. X Female West, Jessica X X Female

40 Practitioners - Investigators are 84.2% Female; GALs are 75.0% Female

 Page 67

Northeast Central District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Balstad, Brian X X Male Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Barron, Sarah X X Female Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee X X Female
Briese, Janice X Female McLean, Jason X X Male
Christenson, Jennifer X Female
Michael, S. Michele X Female
Christianson, Laurie X Female
Moe, Jordan X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female
Murphy, Paul X X Male
Edland, Karen A. X Female
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male
Oliger, Barbara X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female
Oster, Julie X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female
Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female
Pettit, Kristi X X Female
Gjesdahl, Michael L. X X Male
Prudhomme, Rachel X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female
Rebel, Katelynn X Female
Hamnes, Launee Lawyer X Female
Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female
Richards, Larry J. X X Male

Jacobson, Brenda X Female Schull, Diane X Female

Johnson, Carol E. X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female

Johnson, Francine X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male

Johnston, Jacey X X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female

Kiland, Kristy PsyD X Female Weerts,Melinda Hansen X X Female
Kohlmeyer, Joan E. X Female West, Jessica X X Female

45 Practitioners - Investigators are 83.3% Female; GALs are 75.0% Female

 Page 68

Northwest District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Balstad, Brian X X Male Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Booke, Tammy E. X Female LeMay, Jeanne X Female
Briese, Janice X Female
Maroney, Daniel R. Jr. X Male
Carlson, Christopher X X Male
McLean, Jason X X Male
Christianson, Laurie X Female
Michael, S. Michele X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female
Murphy, Paul X X Male
Edland, Karen A. X Female
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female
Oliger, Barbara X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female
Oster, Julie X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female
Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female
Hahn, Christopher P., Ph.D. X Male Rebel, Katelynn X Female

Hamnes, Launee Lawyer X Female Schull, Diane X Female

Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female

Jacobson, Brenda X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Johnson, Francine X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female

35 Practitioners - Investigators are 78.8% Female; GALs are 68.8% Female

 Page 69

South Central District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Balaban, Hannah X Female Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Balstad, Brian X X Male Lucke, Eva A. X Female
Briese, Janice X Female Maroney, Daniel R. Jr. X Male
Carlson, Christopher X X Male McLean, Jason X X Male
Christianson, Laurie X Female Michael, S. Michele X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female Murphy, Paul X X Male
Edland, Karen A. X Female Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male Oliger, Barbara X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female Oster, Julie X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female Rebel, Katelynn X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female Redmann, Krisin X X Female
Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Schull, Diane X Female
Jacobson, Brenda X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female
Johnson, Francine X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Kiland, Kristy PsyD X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female

36 Practitioners - Investigators are 79.4% Female; GALs are 70.6% Female

 Page 70

Southeastern District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Balstad, Brian X X Male Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Barron, Sarah X X Female Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee X X Female
Briese, Janice X Female McLean, Jason X X Male
Christianson, Laurie X Female Michael, S. Michele X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female Moe, Jordan X Female
Edland, Karen A. X Female Murphy, Paul X X Male
Ertelt, Troy W., Ph.D. X Male Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female Oliger, Barbara X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female Oster, Julie X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Gustafson, Amber X X Female Rebel, Katelynn X Female
Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Schull, Diane X Female
Jacobson, Brenda X Female Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female
Johnson, Carol E. X Female Strang, Susan X Female
Johnson, Francine X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Johnson, Randall A. X Male Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female
Kiland, Kristy, PsyD X Female Weerts,Melinda Hansen X X Female
Kohlmeyer, Joan E. X Female West, Jessica X X Female

40 Practitioners - Investigators are 83.8% Female; GALs are 80.0% Female

 Page 71

Southwest District Investigators & GALs

Parenting Parenting
Name Investigator GAL Gender Name Investigator GAL Gender
Andrews, Krista L. X X Female Johnson, Francine X Female
Ankers, Alisha X X Female Landis, Joshua X Male
Balstad, Brian X X Male Larson, Kimberlie X X Female
Barron, Sarah X X Female
Lee-Eckes, Melissa X Female
Briese, Janice X Female
McLean, Jason X X Male
Carlson, Christopher X X Male
Michael, S. Michele X Female
Christianson, Laurie X Female
Murphy, Paul X X Male
Doll, Rebecca X Female
Nielsen, Twyla, Ph.D. X Female
duCharme, Leah J. X X Female
Oliger, Barbara X Female
Edland, Karen A. X Female
Oster, Julie X X Female
Foss, Lesley X X Female
Parvey, Shannon E. X X Female
Gahner, Tasha M. X X Female
Garrity, Patricia E. X Female Rebel, Katelynn X Female

Gustafson, Amber X X Female Schull, Diane X Female

Hahn, Christopher P., Ph.D. X Male Simburger, Shelly Isaacs X Female

Humphrey, Bonnie Paradis X X Female Temanson, Paul A. X Male
Jacobson, Brenda X Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst X Female

33 Practitioners - Investigators are 80.6% Female; GALs are 70.6 % Female

 Page 72

Parenting Coordinators by District

(Data From Administrative Office of
Court Roster)
 Page 73

Statewide ND Parent Coordinators

East Central Judicial District Northeast Central Judicial District Southeast Judicial District
Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender
Ankers, Alisha All Districts Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
Female Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
DeRemer, Jan East Central, Northeast Female Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
DeRemer, Jan East Central, Northeast Female
Central, Northeast, DeRemer, Jan East Central, Northeast Female
Central Northeast,
Southeast Central, Northeast,
Southeast
Jordan, Sherylin K. East Central, Northeast Female Southeast
duCharme, Leah J. East Central, Southeast Female
Central
Holman, Maureen East Central, South Female Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee East Central, Southeast, Female
Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee East Central, Southeast, Female
Central
Northeast Central, South Northeast Central, South
Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee East Central, Southeast, Female Central Central
Northeast Central, South Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East
Reynolds, Laura L. East Central, Northeast Female Female
Central Central Central, Northeast,
Reynolds, Laura L. East Central, Northeast Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East Female
Central
Southeast, North Central,
Central, Northeast,
Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East Female South Central
Southeast, North Central,
Central, Northeast, South Central
Sotheast, North Central, Southwest Judicial District
South Central Northwest Judicial District Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender
Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
North Central Judicial District Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
Humphrey, Bonnie P. Northwest, North Central, Female
Kuntz, Sandra K. Northwest, South Central, Female
Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female South Central Southwest
Humphrey, Bonnie P. Northwest, North Central, Female Johnson, Deborah K. Northwest, North Central, Female Mahoney, Allison South Central, Southwest Female
South Central South Central Mattis, Kelly Southwest, Northwest Female
Johnson, Deborah K. Northwest, North Central, Female Kuntz, Sandra K. Northwest, North Central, Female
South Central South Central, Southwest
Kuntz, Sandra K. Northwest, North Central, Female
South Central, Southwest Mattis, Kelly Southwest, Northwest, Female
North Central
Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East Female
Central, Northeast, South Central Judicial District
Southeast, North Central, Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender
South Central Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female
Holman, Maureen East Central, South Female
Northeast Judicial District Central
Name/Address District's Willing to Serve Gender Humphrey, Bonnie P. Northwest, South Central Female
Ankers, Alisha All Districts Female Johnson, Deborah K. Northwest, South Central Female
Christianson, Laurie All Districts Female Kuntz, Sandra K. Northwest, South Central, Female
DeRemer, Jan East Central, Northeast Female Southwest
Central, Northeast, Macintosh-Ellig, Kelsee East Central, Southeast, Female
Southeast Northeast Central, South
Reynolds, Laura L. East Central, Northeast Female Central
Central Mahoney, Allison South Central, Southwest Female
Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East Female Torgerson, Linda Hurst Northeast Central, East Female
Central, Northeast, Central, Northeast,
Southeast, North Central, Southeast, North Central,
South Central South Central

Of Those on the Listed on State Roster, Parent Coordinators are 100% Female
 Page 74

North Dakota Results by County

(Data From Administrative Office of
the Court)
 Page 75

Cass County, North Dakota

Joint Custody Awards Increased Over the Period

Increase in Joint Custody Pronounced Since 2014 Researched Endorsed by
110 Experts
Both 2016 and 2017 Generated the Highest Levels of Shared Parenting over
the Period Examined in Cass County
Mothers Favored for Primary Custody at a Rate Ranging From Four to Six
Times that of Fathers
Judges Norman Anderson, Susan Bailey, Douglas Herman, John Irby, Steven
Marquart, Steven McCullough, Thomas Olson, Frank Racek and Wade Webb
 Page 76

Ward County, North Dakota

Mothers Favored for Primary Custody at a Rate of Up To 14 Times

that of Fathers
Awards of Joint Custody Consistently Fell Significantly Below the
Statewide Average
Trend Toward Court Ordered Wife Custody Increased Dramatically
Over the Period

Judges Todd Cresap, Richard Hagar, Gary Lee, Stacy Louser and Douglas Mattson
 Page 77

Grand Forks County, North Dakota

Grand Forks County had the Lowest Average Percentage of Shared Parenting
Awarded of any of North Dakotas Eight Largest Counties in the Seven Years
Reviewed
Determinations for Shared Parenting were Essentially Flat Overall
In 2017, Grand Forks Awards Shared Parenting in only 28% of Cases, the Lowest
of Any of North Dakotas Eight Largest Counties During the Same Period

Judges Donald Hager, Jon Jensen, Jason McCarthy, Lolita Romanick and John
Thelen
 Page 78

Burleigh County, North Dakota

Joint Custody Award Rate Rose Anemically Over the Period Examined
Mothers Favored for Primary Physical Custody at a Rate of 7 Times that of
Fathers
2017 Has Awards for Joint Custody Equal to Those of Primary Mother
Custody
Court Ordered Primary Mother Custody Rose Over the Period Examined
Judges Sonna Anderson, Cynthia Feland, Gail Hagerty, Bruce Haskell, David Reich
and Bruce Romanick
 Page 79

Stark County, North Dakota

Awards of Joint Custody Fell Significantly Over the Period Examined

Awards of Primary Mother Custody Increased Significantly Over the
Period Examined
Mothers Favored for Primary Custody at a Rate of 5 to 14 Times that of
Fathers
Court Ordered Mother Custody Increased Significantly Over the Period
Examined
Judges Rhonda Ehlis, James Gion, Dann Greenwood and William Herauf
 Page 80

Williams County, North Dakota

Averaged the Second Lowest of the Eight Largest Counties in

Awarding Joint Custody Over the Entire Period Examined.
Low Number of Court Ordered Cases Makes the Data Unreliable
for Trend Analysis
Awarding of Joint Custody Rose Slowly Over the Period Examined

Judges Paul Jacobson, Benjamen Johnson, Joshua Rustad and Kirsten Sjue
 Page 81

Morton County, North Dakota

Experienced a Significant Increase in Shared Parenting Over the Period Examined

Shared Parenting Now Awarded at a Rate of Two Times Mother Primary Custody
Mother Primary Custody Favored at a Rate of Two Times Father Custody. The
Lowest of the Counties Examined
Experienced a Significant Decrease in Mother Custody Over the Period Examined
In 2017, Awarding of Joint Custody in 58.6% of Cases was Highest in State

Judges John Grinsteiner and Thomas Schneider

 Page 82

Stutsman County, North Dakota

Awarded Joint Custody at a Rate Higher Than Any Other of the Largest Eight
Counties During the Period Examined
Has Awarded Joint Custody at a Higher Rate than Primary Mother Custody Since
2013
2017 Custody Award Rate of 50% was Second Highest in the State (After Morton
County at 58.8%)
Low Number of Court Ordered Cases Makes the Data Unreliable for Trend Analysis

Judge John Greenwood

 Page 83

Micro Validation of Raw Data


Burleigh County - Validation of Raw Data
Location CaseNumber CaseType JudgmentDate
(1) Burleigh County 08-2012-DM-00124 Divorce
(2) Burleigh County 08-2013-DM-00136 Divorce
(3) Burleigh County 08-2012-DM-00830 Divorce
(4) Burleigh County 08-2012-DM-00723 Divorce
(5) Burleigh County 08-2013-DM-00256 Divorce
(6) Burleigh County 08-2017-DM-00216 Divorce
(7) Burleigh County 08-2012-DM-00769 Divorce
(8) Burleigh County 08-2012-DM-00026 Divorce
Three of Eight Cases Reviewed Were Not Actually Equal Parenting Time
Page 84
Custody DecidedBy Validation
2/20/2013 Joint Court Primary Residential Responsibility awarded to Mother by Judge Romanick after trial. Father
awarded alternating weekends if he wants that much parenting time.
2/20/2013 Joint Stipulation The parents stipulated to equal parenting time.
12/5/2012 Joint Court Judgment describes the parenting time award as being shared jointly equal time, but parenting
time award is difficult to fully comprehend other than that the father has the children when
mother is at work and mother has them most of the other time. The child support payments were
stayed by stipulation of the parties. The judgment was entered by the court after father agreed, in
his answer to the petition/complaint that was filed by the mother, to the mother being granted
the relief she had requested, even though the mothers petition/complaint did not specifically
state what she wanted other than that she wanted a divorce. It appears from all the documents of
record, the parents agreed to the shared parenting arrangement set forth in the judgment and
parenting plan entered by the court.
12/6/2012 Joint Stipulation Primary Residential Responsibility awarded to Mother. Father awarded alternating weekends and
one night a week, split holidays, alternating childrens birthdays, and parenting time on the fathers
birthdays. The judgment was entered by the court after father agreed, in his answer to the
petition/complaint that was filed by the mother, to the mother being granted the relief she had
requested, even though the mothers petition/complaint did not specifically state what she wanted
other than that she wanted a divorce. It appears from all the documents of record, the parents
agreed to the parenting plan set forth in the judgment and parenting plan entered by the court.
4/11/2017 Joint Stipulation Mother awarded Primary Residential Responsibility in original judgment entered in 2013 pursuant
to a stipulation wherein father was awarded parenting time of less than 7 days out of every 21
days, based on his work schedule of 7 days on, 4 off, 7 on, and 3 off, and then the judgement was
later amended in 2017 pursuant to another stipulation to award the parents equal parenting time.
4/11/2017 Joint Court The parents stipulated to equal parenting time.
8/31/2016 Joint Stipulation The 2012 Judgment was entered based on a stipulation of the parties and awarded equal joint
parenting time, a biweekly schedule of 4-3 first week and 3-4 second week. An Amended Judgment
was entered in 2016, again by stipulation of the parties, that added an alternating holiday schedule
to the parenting plan, among other modifications that did not affect parenting time.
9/9/2016 Joint Court The 2013 Judgment awarded split custody of the two children: the father was awarded primary
residential responsibility of their oldest child, their daughter, and mother was awarded primary
residential responsibility of their youngest child, their son. They lived about a 150 miles away from
each other, so the parenting time awarded to the non-custodial parent of each child was less than
35%. After daughter reached adulthood, father moved for and was awarded primary residential
responsibility of their son with mother being awarded parenting time of every other weekend
during school and half of summer. Both awards were made by the court, Judge Reich, after
trial/evidentiary hearing.
Leading Women for Shared Parenting
An International Child Advocacy Organization

www.lw4sp.org