Background
Taylor Vollmer and Kiah Hove share a daughter, SNRV, born in 2010. A 2015 judgment awarded Hove primary residential responsibility, with Vollmer receiving parenting time on alternating weekends, Wednesday evenings, alternating holidays, and extended summer periods. Beginning in early 2025, the daughter began refusing to attend her mother’s parenting time, prompting Hove to seek contempt sanctions against Vollmer.
At a July 2025 hearing, SNRV testified that she refused to visit her mother because she distrusted Hove, felt afraid, and had witnessed arguing and screaming. She submitted an affidavit describing a physical altercation at Hove’s home and stated her refusal was her own decision. Vollmer did not testify at the July hearing. The district court held Vollmer in contempt, found he failed to comply with the parenting plan, and ordered him to pay $1,000 in attorney’s fees.
Vollmer moved to reconsider, arguing his noncompliance was not willful. Hove moved again for contempt based on continued noncompliance. After hearings in September 2025 at which all three parties testified, the district court found SNRV’s claims of fear were not credible, determined that Vollmer had failed to impose adequate discipline to secure SNRV’s compliance, and held him in contempt a second time, ordering an additional $1,000 in attorney’s fees.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed both contempt orders, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion. The court distinguished this case from prior decisions in Lind v. Lind and Votava v. Votava—in which district courts declined to find custodial parents in contempt based on children’s refusals—by noting that in those cases the district courts had exercised their discretion in favor of the parent, whereas here the district court exercised that same discretion against Vollmer. The question on appeal was not which outcome was required, but whether holding Vollmer in contempt was an abuse of discretion.
The court found adequate evidentiary support for the contempt findings. The district court had determined SNRV’s testimony about fear was not credible, found that Vollmer failed to impose consequences on SNRV for refusing to honor the parenting plan, and concluded that his inaction amounted to willful noncompliance with the court’s order. Vollmer had an obligation—even without a duty to physically transport SNRV—to discipline her and make clear she was required to attend Hove’s parenting time.
Addressing what it acknowledged was an issue of first impression, the court surveyed authority from Washington, Montana, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania affirming contempt findings against parents who acquiesced in, encouraged, or failed to counteract a child’s refusal to comply with visitation orders. The court adopted the same approach and affirmed the district court’s orders.
Key Takeaways
- A custodial parent’s passive acquiescence in a child’s refusal to attend the other parent’s parenting time can constitute willful contempt of a custody order, even absent proof the parent actively encouraged the refusal.
- The district court’s contempt determination is reviewed only for abuse of discretion; because two district courts reached opposite results on similar facts in Lind/Votava versus this case, either outcome may fall within the range of permissible discretion.
- When a child’s claimed fear or safety concerns are found not credible, a parent cannot use those claims as a shield against contempt; the parent must impose consequences and actively direct the child to comply.
- The court signaled that if a parent imposes adequate consequences but the child still refuses, contempt proceedings may be directed at the child rather than the parent.
Why It Matters
This is the first North Dakota Supreme Court decision squarely holding that a residential parent can be held in contempt for failing to discipline a child who refuses court-ordered parenting time with the other parent. Prior North Dakota precedent (Lind and Votava) only addressed circumstances where the district court declined to find contempt — leaving open whether a finding of contempt was also permissible. Vollmer closes that gap and aligns North Dakota with a multistate consensus that parental passivity in the face of a child’s defiance is not a free pass.
For family law practitioners, the decision underscores that parents in North Dakota have an affirmative obligation to enforce custody orders, not merely to avoid actively obstructing them. An attorney counseling a client whose child refuses visitation should advise prompt, documented parental intervention — including clear directives and meaningful consequences — to avoid contempt exposure. The court’s suggestion that a recalcitrant child could independently be held in contempt is also notable, though it remains to be developed in future cases.