Parenting schedules are meant to ensure that children maintain relationships with both parents, but disputes can arise when one parent repeatedly prevents the other from exercising court-ordered parenting time. In North Dakota, a mother’s decision to withhold her children from their father and stop communicating with him led to a contempt finding and an order granting the father 19 weekends of make-up parenting time.In a November 6, 2026, decision available on Justia, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the contempt ruling against Christa Sandstrom in a dispute involving Courtney Krueger. The court found no clear error in the lower court’s conclusion that Sandstrom had willfully and inexcusably withheld the children from their father. It also upheld the remedial sanction of additional parenting time, rejecting her argument that the 19 weekends were punitive rather than intended to address the missed visits.
How the parenting dispute developed
The case, Krueger v. Sandstrom, involved disagreements over parenting arrangements and allegations that Sandstrom had prevented Krueger from spending time with their children. Krueger sought enforcement of the existing parenting arrangement after the mother allegedly withheld the children and stopped communicating with him. The dispute eventually led to an evidentiary hearing in the district court. Sandstrom also sought to modify the existing parenting-time arrangement, arguing that circumstances had changed and that the court should reconsider the children’s schedule.During the hearing, she wanted two witnesses to testify about an ongoing criminal investigation. The court declined to require their testimony on that subject but gave her two options: withdraw her motion and refile it later, or continue with the hearing without those witnesses. Sandstrom chose to proceed. The district court subsequently denied her request to modify parenting time, found her in contempt and awarded Krueger 19 weekends of make-up parenting time as a remedial sanction. It also awarded him attorney’s fees.
Why the mother challenged the ruling
Sandstrom appealed several parts of the district court’s decision. She argued that the court should have granted her a continuance after restricting the proposed testimony about the active criminal investigation. She also maintained that the district court’s findings were insufficient and that it had improperly limited her ability to present evidence of a material change in circumstances. According to her argument, the excluded testimony was relevant to her request to modify the existing parenting arrangement.Under North Dakota law, a parent seeking to modify parenting time must demonstrate that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the previous order and that the proposed modification would serve the children’s best interests. The state Supreme Court noted that a material change generally involves important new facts that were unknown when the original parenting-time order was entered.The district court had considered the abuse allegations and the factors relevant to the children’s best interests. It found that no material change in circumstances had been established. The Supreme Court concluded that these findings were sufficient and were not clearly erroneous.
Why the Supreme Court upheld the 19 weekends
A central issue in the appeal was whether the district court had properly found Sandstrom in contempt and whether awarding Krueger 19 weekends of additional parenting time was an appropriate remedy. Sandstrom argued that the sanction was punitive in effect rather than remedial. She challenged the court’s authority to impose such an arrangement as a response to the missed parenting time.The Supreme Court explained that determining whether contempt has occurred and whether remedial sanctions are justified falls within the district court’s discretion. An appellate court will not overturn such a decision unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.In this case, the district court specifically found that Sandstrom had willfully and inexcusably withheld the children from Krueger and stopped communicating with him. The Supreme Court found no clear error in those findings. It also concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion by awarding 19 weekends of make-up parenting time.The additional weekends were treated as a remedial measure intended to address the parenting time Krueger had lost because of the mother’s conduct. The court therefore upheld both the contempt finding and the additional parenting-time award.
What happened to the attorney’s fees
Sandstrom also challenged the attorney’s fees awarded to Krueger. She questioned whether the district court had authority to determine the amount after an appeal had already been filed and argued that the award was not adequately supported. The Supreme Court explained that under North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 54(e)(2), a court can decide a timely attorney’s fees motion even after an appeal has been filed. Krueger had submitted his request in time, so the district court had authority to determine the fees.However, the Supreme Court declined to review Sandstrom’s separate challenge to the amount awarded. Her notice of appeal had been filed before the district court issued the order setting the amount, and she had not amended the notice or filed another appeal after that order. As a result, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.
What the ruling means
In its November 6, 2026, decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court’s orders denying Sandstrom’s request to modify parenting time, finding her in contempt, denying her continuance and awarding remedial sanctions and attorney’s fees. The ruling reinforces that parents must comply with existing parenting-time orders unless they are formally changed by a court. It also shows that make-up parenting time can serve as a remedial sanction when one parent has deliberately prevented the other from exercising court-ordered visits.The decision does not establish a new parenting schedule or resolve the underlying family dispute in its entirety. Instead, it upholds the lower court’s findings and the 19 additional weekends awarded to Krueger.
