from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
E. Pagel, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
M. Moldenhauer, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee.
1] Aeryn Peterson appeals from an order to show cause and an
order finding her in contempt. She argues the district court
abused its discretion by finding her in contempt and ordering
her to pay Cody Schulz's attorneys fees. We affirm.
2] Peterson and Schulz have one child together, who was born
in 2004. In 2011, a judgment awarded Peterson primary
residential responsibility of the child and Schulz was
awarded parenting time. In 2013, the judgment was amended to
modify Schulz's parenting time. Schulz was awarded
parenting time every Wednesday evening and every other
weekend during the school year and every other week during
3] On August 5, 2016 Peterson moved to relocate with the
child out of state. Peterson requested the court allow her to
move with the child to New Mexico so she could pursue a
degree in theater.
4] On August 8, 2016 Schulz moved for an order to show cause,
arguing Peterson violated the judgment by moving the child
out of state without his consent or a court order. Schulz
also requested the court order Peterson to return the child
to North Dakota "immediately and no later than August
15, 2016, " and award him full costs and attorneys fees
for having to bring the motion. Schulz filed a supporting
affidavit claiming he served Peterson with a letter on August
4, 2016, informing her he did not consent to the move, he
learned Peterson and the child were in New Mexico on August
8, 2016, and Peterson refused to return the child to North
5] On August 11, 2016 the district court granted Schulz's
motion and entered an order to show cause. The court further
ordered Peterson to return the child to North Dakota by
August 15, 2016.
6] On August 15, 2016 Peterson responded to the motion for an
order to show cause, arguing she was entitled to respond to
the motion before the court could find she was in contempt or
order her to act in any specific capacity. She claimed the
court's order that she return the child to the state was
improper because she did not have an opportunity to respond
to the motion and a hearing had not been held.
7] After a hearing the district court entered an order
finding Peterson in contempt. The court found Peterson
violated the judgment and was in contempt for moving the
child to New Mexico without receiving Schulz's consent.
The court awarded Schulz $1, 610 in attorneys fees.
8] Schulz argues Peterson cannot appeal from an order to show
cause because it is not an appealable order. He requests the
appeal regarding that order be dismissed.
9] "Only judgments and decrees which constitute a final
judgment of the rights of the parties to the action and the
orders enumerated by statute are appealable." Jordet
v. Jordet, 2015 ND 73, ¶ 14, 861 N.W.2d 154.
Section 28-27-02, N.D.C.C., governs which ...