The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded a district court's criminal judgment in *State v. Maher*, addressing the complex intersection of constitutional parenting rights and criminal sentencing authority. The case, decided as 2026 ND 35, establishes important precedent on when courts can impose sentences that conflict with existing parenting orders.
Joshua John Maher appealed his criminal judgment and an order extending an order prohibiting contact (OPC) that prevented him from contacting his ex-wife K.M., who is also the mother of his minor child. Maher argued the district court imposed an illegal sentence and violated his constitutional right to parent by extending the OPC for the two years he would be subject to supervised probation.
The case originated in August 2024 when the State charged Maher with Terrorizing – Domestic Violence, a class C felony under North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-17-04(1). The victim, K.M., is Maher's ex-wife and the mother of his minor child, creating a complex situation where criminal justice objectives intersected with parental rights.
On Aug. 27, 2024, the District Court of Burleigh County entered a pre-dispositional OPC under North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-31.2-02 prohibiting Maher from contacting K.M. "for a period of thirty days after disposition of the criminal case unless continued at the disposition to one year from the date of disposition." After Maher filed a not guilty plea in September 2024, the court extended the order, setting the stage for the constitutional conflict that would reach the state's highest court.
The North Dakota Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Fair McEvers, established several key legal principles in its reversal. The court's syllabus clarifies that appellate courts will only vacate a district court's sentencing decision if the court acted outside statutorily prescribed limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.
The ruling emphasizes that district courts maintain broad discretion to tailor probation conditions to each case's particular facts and circumstances, provided the conditions are reasonably necessary to ensure the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or assist the defendant in doing so. This principle gives trial judges flexibility in crafting sentences that address the specific circumstances of each case.
However, the Supreme Court also established clear boundaries regarding constitutional rights. The opinion states that while the constitutional right to parent is not without limits, courts must carefully balance this fundamental right against legitimate penological interests when imposing sentences that may conflict with existing parenting orders.
The case highlights the challenging legal terrain courts must navigate when domestic violence cases involve parents of minor children. Criminal justice objectives, including victim protection and defendant rehabilitation, must be weighed against the constitutional right to parent and the best interests of children who may be caught in the middle of such conflicts.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand the case for resentencing suggests the district court failed to properly balance these competing interests. While the specific details of how the lower court erred are not fully detailed in the available excerpts, the reversal indicates the extension of the no-contact order for the full two-year probation period was found to be inappropriate.
This ruling provides important guidance for trial courts handling similar cases where domestic violence charges involve co-parents. Courts must ensure that any restrictions placed on parental contact serve legitimate penological purposes and are not broader than necessary to achieve those objectives.
The case also underscores the complexity of domestic violence prosecutions involving parents. While protecting victims remains paramount, courts must carefully consider the impact of their orders on children and parental relationships, ensuring that criminal justice measures do not unnecessarily infringe on fundamental constitutional rights.
For legal practitioners, *State v. Maher* serves as a reminder that criminal sentences involving parental rights require careful analysis of both statutory authority and constitutional protections. Defense attorneys representing parents in domestic violence cases should examine whether proposed sentences or probation conditions properly balance public safety concerns with parental rights.
The case was appealed from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, where the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig presided. Isaac O. Lees, Assistant State's Attorney from Bismarck, represented the state, while Patrick W. Waters, also from Bismarck, represented Maher.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand means the case will return to the district court for resentencing, where the judge must craft a sentence that properly balances the competing interests identified by the high court. This remand provides an opportunity for the trial court to impose conditions that protect the victim while respecting Maher's constitutional parenting rights.