Young, n/k/a Klein v. Young
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: District court order denying motion to change primary residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7).
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2016 ND 238
Katherine Marie Young, n/k/a Katherine Marie Klein, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
James Charles Young, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20160206
Appeal from the
District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Susan L. Bailey,
Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Melinda H. Weerts, P.O. Box 2310, Fargo, ND
58108-2310, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
James C. Young, self-represented,
2600 Parkview Drive South, Fargo, ND 58103, defendant and appellant.
Young v. YoungNo.
20160206Per Curiam.[¶1] James Young appealed
a district court's order denying his request to change his child's primary residence to him and to
find the mother in contempt. Young argued the district court incorrectly believed some evidence
and witnesses more than others and improperly determined the mother did not violate the district
court's order. On appeal, Young also argued for the first time that the mother committed
domestic violence against his daughter when she allegedly slapped her twice. Young did not
argue the mother's actions constituted domestic violence to the district court and the district court
made no findings on the alleged slaps. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it did not hold the mother in contempt and was not clearly erroneous in its findings of fact,
we affirm under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and (4),
N.D.R.App.P. See Dvorak v.
Dvorak, 2006 ND 171, ¶ 11,
719 N.W.2d 362 (we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess credibility when there is evidence
to support a district court's findings). We also affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Chapman v. Chapman, 2004 ND 22, ¶ 7, 673 N.W.2d 920 (this Court will not
consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).[¶2] Contrary to N.D.R.App.P. 30(a), Young included numerous
documents in his appendix which were not part of the record. Therefore, we award double costs
to the appellee. See N.D.R.App.P. 13;
Schroeder v. Praska, 512 N.W.2d 667, 668 (N.D. 1994) (awarding double costs for a
violation of N.D.R.App.P. 30(a)).[¶3] Gerald W.
VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J.
Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.