Background
Mark Rath and Kayla Rath (now Kayla Jones) were parties to a custody and parenting arrangement involving their minor child. The Burleigh County District Court, presided over by Judge Daniel D. Narum, entered two judgments amending the existing parenting arrangement. The first judgment restricted Mark Rath’s parenting time, and the second modified the allocation of noncovered medical expenses, shifting the entire burden of those costs to Mark Rath.
In addition to the parenting and financial modifications, the district court found that Mark Rath had engaged in abusive litigation. Rath, representing himself, appealed both judgments to the North Dakota Supreme Court, contesting each of the three rulings against him. The State of North Dakota participated as a statutory real party in interest, as is required in proceedings involving child support and related matters.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed both district court judgments in a per curiam opinion, invoking the summary affirmance procedure under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). The court found that the district court’s factual findings underlying each ruling—restricted parenting time, the full noncovered medical expense obligation, and the abusive litigation determination—were not clearly erroneous, the standard of review applicable to such findings.
The court also declined to address any arguments that Rath failed to adequately brief or raised for the first time at oral argument, citing established North Dakota precedent holding that such arguments are not properly before the appellate court. To the extent Rath advanced additional arguments on appeal, the court found those were similarly waived for inadequate briefing or untimely presentation.
Key Takeaways
- The district court’s restriction of Mark Rath’s parenting time was upheld as not clearly erroneous, the deferential standard applied to trial court fact-finding in family law matters.
- The requirement that Rath bear sole responsibility for all noncovered medical expenses for the minor child was affirmed on the same grounds.
- The abusive litigation finding against Rath was sustained, a significant sanction that signals judicial intolerance of repetitive or bad-faith filings in family court proceedings.
- Arguments not adequately briefed or raised for the first time at oral argument are waived and will not be considered by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the difficulty self-represented litigants face in preserving appellate arguments, particularly the requirement to adequately brief every issue raised on appeal. The court’s refusal to reach unbriefed or untimely arguments underscores that procedural rules apply equally to pro se parties, leaving Rath without review of potentially significant claims.
The abusive litigation finding is also noteworthy for practitioners. North Dakota courts have mechanisms to curtail repetitive or harassing litigation in family law matters, and an abusive litigation designation can carry lasting consequences for a party’s ability to bring future motions or actions. The case serves as a reminder that family court judges retain broad discretion in managing parenting time and cost allocation, and appellate courts will not disturb those findings absent clear error.