Northern Mariana Islands

No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. 8 CMC § 1311 permits custody orders according to justice and the best interests of all concerned. Robinson holds that the best interests of the child control, while courts must take into account the interests of all concerned. Robinson enumerates no factors. Subject to the confirmation procedure in § 1105, § 1104 excludes adoptions, annulments and divorces effected in accordance with local custom from this division.

Authority

8 CMC § 1311; Robinson v. Robinson, 1 N.M.I. 81 (1990)

Source framework

No enumeration

Factor structure

n/a

Operative language

may

Catch-all language

n/a

Presumptions in the original survey

On the specified judicial domestic- or family-violence finding, §1931 creates a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint custody with the perpetrator; §1933 creates a rebuttable best-interest presumption favoring the child’s residence with the nonperpetrator parent in that parent’s chosen location, within or outside the Commonwealth. Section 1932 supplies separate safety factors and relocation protection.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Irreconcilable differences under § 1331(g), defined as persistent and irresolvable disagreements resulting in breakdown. Alternatively, two consecutive years apart without cohabitation, with or without mutual consent.

Authority

8 CMC § 1331 (grounds), § 1332 (residency)

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Irreconcilable differences under § 1331(g), defined as persistent and irresolvable disagreements resulting in breakdown. Alternatively, two consecutive years apart without cohabitation, with or without mutual consent.

Other grounds and proof conditions

6: adultery, cruel treatment, neglect or personal indignities, willful desertion one year, habitual intemperance one year, imprisonment for life or three years or more, willful neglect by the husband to support his wife. Plus insanity of three years, § 1331(f), which is neither fault nor consent. Nine causes total, "and no other"

Separation

Two consecutive years without cohabitation, "whether or not by mutual consent," § 1331(h)

Timing

The §1332 residence requirement is ordinarily 90 days immediately before filing. Its seven-day alternative requires both parties’ written consent and the acknowledgment or verification specified in §1332(b)(2). These are residence periods, not post-filing waiting periods. No separate fixed post-filing waiting period is stated in the four divorce-article sections, §§1331–1334.

Relief without dissolution

No separate legal-separation remedy is provided in the four divorce-article sections, §§1331–1334. This statement covers that article only, not every provision, remedy or local custom.

Compare divorce grounds nationally

No general relocation procedure identified. Section 1933 separately supplies a conditional violence-related child-residence presumption, and §1932(b) protects violence-caused relocation. No general relocation burden identified.

Authority

None found (8 CMC 1311, 1933 general)

Court test

no general relocation procedure found; conditional violence-related residence presumption

Burden classification

no general relocation allocation identified

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

no general distance or duration threshold identified; conditional residence protections apply

Effect of silence

No generally applicable deemed-consent procedure identified; existing orders remain separate

What the court weighs

No generally applicable relocation procedure identified. Section 1311 supplies general custody authority. Separate family-violence protections do apply: § 1932(b) protects a parent who relocated because of family violence from a custody or visitation penalty. In a child-custody dispute, a Superior Court determination that domestic or family violence occurred raises §1933’s rebuttable best-interest presumption favoring the child’s residence with the nonperpetrator parent in that parent’s chosen location, within or outside the Commonwealth.

Who carries the burden

No general relocation burden allocation identified. Section 1933’s rebuttable residence presumption has its own domestic-or-family-violence finding predicates; it is not a general relocation burden rule.

Notice and safety exceptions

No generally applicable relocation-specific advance-notice procedure identified. The conditional violence-related residence protections and individual court orders are separate.

Which moves trigger the rule

None found. Only the family-violence residence presumption (sec. 1933) speaks of a child living "within or outside the Commonwealth."

Objections and the effect of silence

None found.

The modification threshold

None found on relocation. Sec. 1311 permits revision of custody at any time upon motion. Secondary websites say CNMI courts require a substantial change of circumstances. Not confirmed from a case and not relied on.

Other qualifications

In a child-custody dispute, a Superior Court determination that domestic or family violence occurred raises a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to reside with the parent who is not a perpetrator, in that parent’s chosen location within or outside the Commonwealth (§1933). This is a conditional child-residence presumption, not an unconditional entitlement of a victim parent.

Important qualification

Least certain classification in the survey. General custody provisions coexist with express family-violence residence protections.

Burden summary

No general allocation identified

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

No general threshold identified; conditional residence protection applies

Compare parental relocation nationally