North Dakota Supreme Court hears appeal of parenting-time schedule and $37,000 contempt award

The North Dakota Supreme Court on the record heard arguments in the appeal of Eric Baker, who challenged a district court's decision that (1) replaced a counselor-driven reunification plan with a date-based, graduated parenting-time schedule and (2) found Baker in contempt and awarded Ashley Hillerson $37,000 in attorney's fees.

Why it matters: The appeal asks the high court to decide whether the district court's timeline for restoring parenting time was supported by evidence and whether the contempt and fee award satisfied legal standards that require willful, bad-faith conduct before imposing such sanctions.

Appellant's counsel Christopher Rausch told the justices the case concerns "what was in the best interest of 2 children" and that the record is "unwieldy." Rausch argued the trial court erred by imposing a fixed-date graduated schedule (calls, supervised visits by June 1, unsupervised non-overnight visits by Sept. 1, and every-other-weekend and normal holidays by Nov. 1) rather than a child-specific, pragmatic plan recommended by the therapist. He said the court's findings that Baker had interfered with reunification were not supported by the record and that there was no finding of bad faith needed to sustain contempt or the fee award.

Michael Malloy, counsel for appellee Ashley Hillerson, urged the court to affirm. Malloy said the district court had reviewed voluminous records and relied on testimony, medical and forensic examinations, and social-services reports when concluding there was no credible evidence of abuse but that a firm timeline was necessary given a lengthy lapse in contact. Malloy told the justices the district court found instances where Baker and family members removed the children from the custodial parent's access, disrupted parenting time, and otherwise frustrated reunification, and that the fee award reflected the extensive work required to litigate those intertwined claims.

During oral argument, the justices questioned whether the appeal was moot if the district court timeline had already been followed (Justice Daniel Crothers noted the final step was scheduled for Nov. 1, 2024) and whether the trial court had adequately tied specific findings to the legal standards for contempt and for awarding fees under North Dakota Century Code sections governing interference with visitation and false allegations of harm to a child.

Rausch pressed that civil contempt under North Dakota law requires proof of a "willful and inexcusable" violation and argued the court's order lacks a finding of bad faith. He also said awarding $37,000 for a small number of missed visits was disproportionate absent a clear allocation tying fees to particular claims. Malloy responded that Hillerson requested fees under multiple statutory theories (including N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.5 and 14-09-24), that pretrial filings and on-the-record discussion preserved the request, and that the district court's detailed order supported the award.

Both sides referenced multiple professionals whose reports or testimony the district court considered: Amanda Lang (child's therapist), Hannah Balaban (parenting investigator), forensic nurses and medical exams, social-services workers, and school- and law-enforcement interviews. Rausch pointed to records he said supported the concern that the court overlooked evidence that rebutted findings of deliberate interference; Malloy emphasized procedural history, the length of time without contact (Malloy said his client had gone 17'18 months without contact before trial), and the district court's broad discretion in credibility determinations.

The court took the case under advisement. No decision was announced at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: none (appellate oral argument; court to issue written decision).

What to watch for next: a written opinion from the North Dakota Supreme Court resolving whether the trial court's date-based reunification schedule and the contempt/fee award should be sustained, reversed, or remanded for further findings or proceedings.