If the court finds credible evidence of domestic violence, as defined in § 14-07.1-01, plus one incident causing serious bodily injury or involving a dangerous weapon, or a pattern within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding, a rebuttable presumption bars residential responsibility for the perpetrating parent. Rebuttal requires clear and convincing evidence that the child’s best interests require that parent to have residential responsibility. The court must make specific protective findings (§ 14-09-06.2(1)(j)).
§ 14-05-03(7) "Irreconcilable differences," defined § 14-05-09.1 as "substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage"
Authority
N.D.C.C. § 14-05-03, § 14-05-09.1
Grounds without a misconduct showing
§ 14-05-03(7) "Irreconcilable differences," defined § 14-05-09.1 as "substantial reasons for not continuing the marriage"
Other grounds and proof conditions
adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, abuse of alcohol or controlled substances, conviction of felony (6)
Separation
none as a ground
Timing
No general waiting period found in chapter 14-05. Under § 14-05-17, the plaintiff must have resided in North Dakota in good faith for six months before commencement, or, if not, for the six months immediately before entry of the decree.
Relief without dissolution
Yes, § 14-05-03.1, temporary or permanent separation on any divorce cause
Court-made relocation factors. On the moving parent. No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required.
Authority
N.D.C.C. 14-09-07
Court test
judicial relocation factors
Burden classification
burden on the relocating parent
Notice classification
no
Trigger classification
out-of-state only
Effect of silence
no (consent or court order required)
What the court weighs
Stout-Hawkinson four factors, all under a best-interest heading: (1) prospective advantages of the move in improving the custodial parent's and child's quality of life. (2) integrity of the custodial parent's motive (not to defeat visitation). (3) integrity of the noncustodial parent's motives in opposing. (4) potential negative impact on the noncustodial parent-child relationship, including a realistic opportunity for substitute visitation and the likelihood each parent will comply (Hawkinson restated factor 4). Stout expressly rejected a presumption for or against removal. No single factor is dominant (Stai-Johnson v. Johnson, 2015 ND 99, para. 6, quoted in Green 2018, Nelson 2024 and McCay 2024). A line running from Gilbert (2007) and Hruby (2009) says that when the custodial parent wants to move to live with a new spouse, 'that fact becomes dominant in favor of allowing the move.' Norby (2020) set it against Green's no-dominant-factor statement without resolving the tension, and Nelson (2024 ND 31, para. 7) recites both rules side by side, citing Norby para. 12 for the new-spouse sentence. Nelson ¶ 28 states that the court must give credence to all four factors but may give more weight to a move to be with a spouse; it held that the trial court did not create a “super factor” because it did not rely solely on the new marriage and considered all factors. When initial residential responsibility and relocation are decided together, the court applies the best-interest factors first, then Stout-Hawkinson (Sayler 2023 ND 156 ¶ 20, Emme 2026 ND 60).
Who carries the burden
On the moving parent, by a preponderance, to show the move is in the child's best interests (Stout ¶ 34, Nelson 2024 ND 31 ¶ 7 and McCay 2024 ND 130, both quoting Larson 2016 ND 76 ¶ 21, read directly). No burden shift.
Notice and safety exceptions
No statutory notice period. Section 14-09-07 instead requires the other parent's consent or a court order before a parent with primary residential responsibility moves the child to another state (if the other parent was given parenting time by the decree). A parent with equal residential responsibility needs consent or an order allowing the move AND awarding that parent primary residential responsibility. No order is needed if the other parent has not exercised parenting time for a year, or has moved out of state and is more than 50 miles away (subsec. 3).
Which moves trigger the rule
Change of the child's primary residence to another state only. Moves within North Dakota are not covered by § 14-09-07. The section applies only once an order establishing residential responsibility exists (Sayler 2023).
Objections and the effect of silence
No statutory objection deadline. When § 14-09-07 applies, consent or a court order is required; silence alone is not consent. Subsection (1) is conditioned on the other parent having been given parenting time, and subsection (3) supplies exceptions.
The modification threshold
The relocation decisions read (Sayler, Nelson, McCay) decide a § 14-09-07 request under Stout-Hawkinson with no separate material-change finding. A change of primary residential responsibility is a separate question (material change plus best interests after the two-year bar, § 14-09-06.6(6)). On competing motions, a custodial parent's proposed move counts as a change of circumstances for a companion custody motion only if that parent will move without the children (Larson v. Larson, 2016 ND 76, ¶ 17, quoting Wright v. Wright, 431 N.W.2d 301, 304 (N.D. 1988)). A trial court may hear a dependent relocation motion after the custody motion (Larson ¶ 19).
Other qualifications
For a covered out-of-state move, a parent with equal residential responsibility needs the other parent’s consent or a court order permitting the move and awarding primary residential responsibility (§ 14-09-07(2)); subsection (3) supplies exceptions.
Burden summary
On the moving parent
Notice summary
No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required
