from the District Court of Morton County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
G. Podoll, Child Support, Bismarck N.D., for plaintiff and
A. Redmann, Bismarck N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.
E. Pagel, Bismarck N.D., for defendant and appellee.
J. Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers. Carol Ronning Kapsner. Dale
V. Sandstrom. Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
J. Crothers, Justice.
[¶1] The State of North Dakota and Shannon
Strating appeal from a district court order granting Strating
and Ken Andres equal residential responsibility of Strating
and Andres' child. Strating argues the district court
erred in its analysis of the best interest factors and in its
parenting plan and by issuing a written order inconsistent
with its oral order. The State and Strating argue the
district court failed to comply with child support
guidelines. We reverse and remand with instructions for the
district court to add the missing statutorily mandated child
support calculations and parenting plan provisions. We affirm
the remainder of the judgment.
[¶2] Strating and Andres are the non-marital
parents of one child. Strating applied for child support and
the North Dakota Child Support Enforcement Unit commenced a
paternity action against Andres. An interim order gave
Strating primary residential responsibility and gave Andres
parenting time once per week and every other weekend and
imposed a child support obligation on Andres. At the
conclusion of trial the district court judge suggested
Strating would receive primary residential responsibility and
asked Strating and Andres to develop a parenting plan.
Strating and Andres were unable to agree on a parenting plan.
The district court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and an Order for Judgment granting equal residential
responsibility. No child support was ordered. Strating moved
the district court to amend its Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order for Judgment. The district court denied
her motion and the State and Strating appeal.
[¶3] Strating argues the district court
erred in granting her and Andres equal residential
responsibility because its findings of fact on the best
interest factors were clearly erroneous.
" The district court's award of primary residential
responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be
reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. A finding
of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no evidence to
support it, if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law,
or if we are convinced, on the basis of the entire record,
that a mistake has been made."
Law v. Whittet, 2014 ND 69, ¶ 8, 844 N.W.2d 885
(internal citations omitted).
[¶4] The district court is required to
consider the best interests and welfare of children in
determining the rights and responsibilities of the parents.
N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2. In deciding the children's
best interests the " court must consider all [relevant]
factors specified in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)."
Schmidt, 2003 ND 55,
¶ 6, 660 N.W.2d 196. Section 14-09-06.2(1), N.D.D.C.,
outlines the following factors for assessing the child's
best interests and welfare:
" a. The love, affection, and other emotional ties
existing between the parents and child and the ability of
each parent to provide the child with nurture, love,
affection, and guidance.
" b. The ability of each parent to assure that the child
receives adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and
a safe environment.
" c. The child's developmental needs and the ability
of each parent to meet those needs, both in the present ...