The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a district court's decision granting primary residential responsibility of two children to David Hughes, rejecting the mother's jurisdictional challenge in a complex interstate custody dispute.
In *Hughes v. Waters* (N.D. 2026), the state's highest court upheld the McKenzie County District Court's ruling that awarded custody of two boys, identified as D.H. and C.H., to Hughes despite arguments from their mother Dana Waters that a California court should have jurisdiction over the case.
The custody battle stems from a four-year relationship between Waters and Hughes that began in 2016 while both lived in Washington state. Waters was pregnant with C.H. from a previous relationship when she began dating Hughes, who raised the boy as his own son and paid child support. The couple had a second child, D.H., in 2018.
After the couple separated when Hughes moved to Oregon, they initially shared custody on a week-on, week-off basis. The arrangement continued when Hughes relocated to North Dakota near the end of 2020, with the children visiting him during summers and Christmas holidays.
The custody arrangement appeared to work smoothly for several years. In 2021, the children spent additional time with Hughes in North Dakota while Waters recovered from back surgery. Hughes maintained regular contact with the children through video calls when they were with Waters in Washington.
The situation became complicated in April 2023 when Waters moved with the children from Washington to California. Two months later, in June 2023, Hughes flew the children from California to North Dakota for their scheduled summer visit.
The dispute escalated when Hughes informed Waters near the end of the summer that he would not be returning the children to her custody. This decision prompted Waters to initiate legal proceedings in California, arguing that the California court should have jurisdiction over the custody matter.
However, Hughes filed his own custody action in North Dakota, seeking primary residential responsibility for both children. The McKenzie County District Court, presided over by Judge Daniel S. El-Dweek, ultimately ruled in Hughes' favor.
On appeal, Waters contended that the North Dakota district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because of the action she had initiated in California. She argued that the California proceedings should take precedence in determining custody arrangements for the children.
The North Dakota Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Jensen, rejected Waters' jurisdictional challenge and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court's opinion indicates that despite Waters' California court filing, North Dakota maintained proper jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody dispute.
The case highlights the complex legal issues that arise when parents and children move across state lines, particularly regarding which state's courts have authority to make custody determinations. Interstate custody disputes often involve application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which provides guidelines for determining proper jurisdiction in multi-state family law cases.
The ruling means Hughes will retain primary residential responsibility for both children, a significant outcome given that he is not the biological father of the older child, C.H. The fact that Hughes had been acting as C.H.'s father figure since birth and had been paying child support likely influenced the court's decision regarding his parental rights.
Waters was represented by Patrick W. Waters of Bismarck, while she appeared pro se as the appellant. Both parties submitted their arguments on brief rather than presenting oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The decision represents the completion of a custody case that spanned multiple states - Washington, Oregon, California, and North Dakota - and involved questions of jurisdiction that are increasingly common as families become more mobile across state lines.
For Waters, the affirmance means her challenge to North Dakota's jurisdiction was unsuccessful, and she will need to work within the framework of the North Dakota custody order. The ruling establishes that Hughes' relocation to North Dakota and the children's regular visits there provided sufficient basis for the state to exercise jurisdiction over the custody matter.
The case underscores the importance of established custody arrangements and the legal complexities that can arise when parents disagree about which state should control custody proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision provides clarity on jurisdictional questions in this particular interstate custody dispute while affirming the district court's substantive custody determination.