from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
E. Depuydt, Wishek, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Charlotte E. Horst, self-represented, Mandan, ND, defendant
Charlotte Horst appeals from a judgment establishing primary
residential responsibility, child support and parenting time
of two children. Horst claims she was denied due process when
the district court issued an emergency ex parte custody order
and refused to appoint counsel. She also claims imposing
child support is unconstitutional, the district court erred
in awarding Hagen primary residential responsibility, and the
district court erred in ordering supervised parenting time
until Horst completes parenting and anger management classes
and establishes residential stability. We summarily affirm
the district court judgment.
Horst argues her constitutional rights were violated when the
district court issued an interim custody order and child
support obligation. This court reviews a claimed violation of
a constitutional right de novo. Rowley v. Cleaver,
1999 ND 158, ¶ 8, 598 N.W.2d 125. "A party must do
more than submit bare assertions to adequately raise
constitutional issues." Riemers v.
O'Halloran, 2004 ND 79, ¶ 6, 678 N.W.2d 547.
Due process may be satisfied by a later evidentiary hearing.
Jensen v. Deaver, 2013 ND 47, ¶ 12, 828 N.W.2d
533. The district court here did not violate Horst's due
process rights when issuing the emergency ex parte order
because Horst later received notice and opportunity to be
heard at an evidentiary hearing. Id. Horst cited
neither fact nor law to support the assertion that child
support laws are unconstitutional. The district court did not
violate Horst's constitutional rights.
The district court's denial of court-appointed counsel is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. DuPaul,
527 N.W.2d 238, 240 (N.D. 1995). Right to court-appointed
counsel in civil matters is limited to statutorily defined
circumstances. Riddle v. Riddle, 2018 ND 62, ¶
16, 907 N.W.2d 769. The issues in this case do not trigger a
right to court-appointed counsel. The court did not abuse its
discretion by declining to appoint counsel to represent
Child support determinations involve questions of law which
are subject to the de novo standard of review and findings of
fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of
review. Minar v. Minar, 2001 ND 74, ¶ 10, 625
N.W.2d 518. "As a matter of law, the district court must
clearly set forth how it arrived at the amount of income and
level of support." Lauer v. Lauer, 2000 ND 82,
¶ 3, 609 N.W.2d 450. The district court's findings
of fact in making its child support determination are
overturned on appeal only if they are clearly erroneous.
Richter v. Houser, 1999 ND 147, ¶ 3, 598 N.W.2d
193. Here the district court explained how it arrived at
Horst's child support obligation under North Dakota
statute and the decision is supported by evidence. The
district court did not err in its determination of child
This Court reviews district court decisions on primary
residential responsibility and parenting time under the
clearly erroneous standard. Rebenitsch v.
Rebenitsch, 2018 ND 48, ¶ 4, 907 N.W.2d 41. The
district court has substantial decision-making authority in
determining proper custody. Brouillet v. Brouillet,
2016 ND 40, ¶ 7, 875 N.W.2d 485. Here, the district
court's findings on the best interest factors contained
sufficient specificity to show the factual basis for its
award of primary residential responsibility to Hagen and was
not clearly erroneous. The district court decision to
condition parenting time on completion of classes and
residential stability is supported by evidence of Horst's
parenting deficiencies and was not clearly erroneous.
The district court's judgment is summarily affirmed under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(2), (3) and (4).
8] Gerald W.VandeWalle, C.J., Daniel J. Crothers, Lisa Fair