The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a district court's authority to deviate upward from presumptive child support guidelines in *Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone*, a case that clarifies when courts may exceed standard support amounts and reinforces procedural rules governing appeals.
In the case numbered 2026 ND 29, the court addressed an appeal by Brett Michael Kingstone against Trisa Ranae Tedrow Kingstone regarding child support obligations. The appeal originated from the District Court of Eddy County in the Southeast Judicial District, where Judge James D. Hovey presided.
The Supreme Court's syllabus establishes three key legal principles. First, district courts may deviate upward from presumptive child support guideline amounts when such deviation serves the best interest of a child and meets one or more criteria enumerated under North Dakota Administrative Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2). Second, district court findings explaining why an upward deviation benefits a child and justifying the deviation amount are sufficient if they provide a clear factual basis for the court's determination. Third, the mandate rule prohibits parties from relitigating issues resolved in previous appeals and requires district courts to follow appellate court pronouncements within remand limits.
This case represents the second time the parties appeared before the North Dakota Supreme Court. In the previous appeal, *Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone* (2025 ND 40, 17 N.W.3d 596), the court reversed an upward deviation from the presumptive guideline amount of child support awarded to Trisa Tedrow Kingstone. The court remanded the case for additional findings and a redetermination on whether the upward deviation was appropriate. The court also directed reconsideration of the amount of life insurance Brett Kingstone had been ordered to maintain, as it was based on his child support obligation.
Following the remand, the district court reinstated the upward deviation after conducting additional proceedings. Brett Kingstone subsequently appealed this decision, leading to the current Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the district court's order.
The case was argued by Jacey L. Johnston and briefed by Blayze Fisher, both operating under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students from Grand Forks. Robert G. Will of Minot represented the defendant and appellee. Justice Jensen authored the court's opinion.
The ruling has important implications for family law practitioners and parents involved in child support proceedings throughout North Dakota. By affirming the district court's authority to deviate from standard guidelines, the Supreme Court provides clarity on the legal standards courts must apply when considering upward deviations from presumptive child support amounts.
The decision emphasizes that courts must demonstrate how upward deviations serve children's best interests while meeting specific administrative code criteria. This requirement ensures that deviations from standard guidelines are based on legitimate factors rather than arbitrary determinations.
The court's reaffirmation of the mandate rule also carries procedural significance for appellate practice. The rule prevents parties from attempting to relitigate issues that have been definitively resolved in prior appeals, promoting finality in judicial proceedings while requiring district courts to comply with appellate directives within the scope of remands.
For family law cases involving child support, the ruling provides guidance on how courts should document their reasoning for deviations from presumptive guidelines. The Supreme Court indicated that findings are adequate if they allow reviewing courts to understand the factual basis for the determination, suggesting that detailed explanations are necessary but need not follow specific formalistic requirements.
The case also demonstrates the appellate process in action, showing how remands function to allow trial courts to correct deficiencies identified by appellate courts. After the initial reversal and remand, the district court conducted additional proceedings and made new findings that ultimately satisfied the Supreme Court's requirements.
This decision will likely influence how district courts approach child support deviation requests going forward. Courts must carefully document their reasoning when considering upward deviations, ensuring they can articulate how the deviation serves the child's best interest and identify which administrative code criteria support their determination.
The ruling reinforces North Dakota's commitment to ensuring child support orders adequately meet children's needs while maintaining appropriate procedural safeguards. By upholding the district court's revised order, the Supreme Court validated the lower court's compliance with the remand instructions and proper application of child support deviation standards.