LAPP v. LAPP

13 Citing cases

  1. Daley v. Gunville

    348 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1984)   Cited 15 times
    Granting custody of child to grandmother who had become psychological parent and awarding child's mother liberal visitation

    These circumstances are certainly relevant factors to be considered in determining a child's best interests. In Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350, 353 (N.D. 1983), this court concluded that: ". . . the circumstances of `living together' alone does not mandate a transfer of custody.

  2. Matter of Guardianship of Nelson

    519 N.W.2d 15 (N.D. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Granting custody to stepmother-figure and visitation to aunt when children's mother abandoned them and children's father passed away

    Daley, 348 N.W.2d at 447. We rejected the trial court's "principal reliance on the uncertain status" of the grandmother's relationship with her companion of over twenty years, quoting from Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350, 353 (N.D. 1983): ". . . the circumstances of `living together' alone does not mandate a transfer of custody.

  3. Johnson v. Schlotman

    502 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 1993)   Cited 28 times

    Barstad v. Barstad, 499 N.W.2d 584 (N.D. 1993); Gould v. Miller, 488 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1992); Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1987). As the party seeking the change, Dianne has the burden of showing both that a circumstance changed significantly and that this change so adversely affected the child that custody should be changed. Gould, supra; Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983). There are changed circumstances in this case: Jon remarried, Dianne informed the children that she is a lesbian, Dianne resides with her lesbian partner, and the children refuse to exercise their visitation with Dianne.

  4. Blotske v. Leidholm

    487 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 50 times
    Holding "[t]here is an `aversion' to changing the custody of a happy child who has been living with one parent for a substantial time"

    Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1987), Wright, supra; Starke v. Starke, 458 N.W.2d 758 (N.D.App. 1990). The party seeking a change of custody must establish a significant change in circumstances which either "requires" [ Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983)] a change of custody for the child's best interests or "fosters" [ Ebertz v. Ebertz, 338 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1983)] or "serves" [ Ludwig v. Burchill, 481 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 1992)] the child's best interests. The significant change in circumstances must so adversely affect the child that custody should be changed. Gould v. Miller, 488 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1992).

  5. Gould v. Miller

    488 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 25 times

    Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97, 99 (N.D. 1987). If the court finds a significant change in circumstance, it must then consider whether the change compels a custodial change for the best interests of the child. Id. The parent seeking to modify custody has the burden of showing both that a circumstance changed significantly and that this change so adversely affected the child that custody should be changed. Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983). As the movant, Randall had this burden.

  6. Johnson v. Johnson

    480 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing trial court's ability to ascertain the demeanor and credibility of expert witness

    The burden is on the party seeking modification to demonstrate that there has been a significant change of circumstances which requires a change in custody. Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983). The trial court's determination on a motion to modify an original custody award is subject on appeal to the clearly erroneous standard of review under Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. Therefore, the trial court's findings will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.

  7. Wright v. Wright

    463 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 6 times
    Describing the term "changed circumstances"

    The burden of showing a change of circumstances which, in the best interests of the child, requires a change of custody is on the party seeking modification. Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983). The term "changed circumstances" has been described as new facts which were unknown to the moving party at the time the decree was entered.

  8. Reede v. Steen

    461 N.W.2d 438 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 13 times

    Contradictory evidence was provided by Susan Plambeck, a neighbor of Shirley's who shared the transportation duties with Sheryl Slagle. Susan Plambeck said that no such transportation arrangements had been made and that Katherine was often left alone before and after school. It is for the trial court to determine whether or not an arrangement for Katherine's transportation to and from school and care after school had been made, as the trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses by hearing and observing them. Ebertz v. Ebertz, 338 N.W.2d 651, 654 (N.D. 1983); Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350, 353 (N.D. 1983) (citing Lapp, 293 N.W.2d at 129). In discussing our review when governed by the "clearly erroneous" standard we have stated:

  9. Von Bank v. Von Bank

    443 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    In Von Bank v. Von Bank, 443 N.W.2d 618, 619 (N.D. 1989), we upheld a change of custody from the mother to the father, based in part on a trial court's finding that, by not informing the father about the child's medical and dental health, the mother sought to frustrate the father's parental relationship with the child "to an extent that adversely affected" the child.

    Troubled that "Jeanine chose not to participate in the evaluation by Dr. Deitz, nor did she utilize the Employee Assistance Program [for psychological testing and counseling] made available to her through her employer, Dakota Hospital," the trial court weighed Vanessa's social isolation and depression significantly. Whether changes in circumstances authorize a redetermination of placement of a child's custody is a question of fact. Miller v. Miller, 305 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1981); Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983); Pitsenbarger v. Pitsenbarger, 382 N.W.2d 662 (N.D. 1986). The changes must not only be significant, but they must also indicate that a change in custody will promote the child's best interests.

  10. Orke v. Olson

    411 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    In Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97, 101 (N.D. 1987), we held that the trial court erred in changing custody from the mother to the father.

    "The burden of showing a change of circumstances which affects the best interests of the child and requires a change in custody is on the party seeking modification. Lapp v. Lapp, 336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983). On appeal, this court will not set aside the trial court's determination unless it is clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. Ebertz, supra; Lapp, supra.