AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 14-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to interference with court-ordered parenting time; to create a child custody review task force; to provide for a legislative management report; and to provide a penalty.
SB 2186 addresses enforcement of court-ordered parenting time in child custody cases. If a court finds that one parent intentionally interfered with the other parent’s ordered parenting time, the court must generally award additional parenting time to the parent who lost time, unless the interfering parent proves by clear and convincing evidence that additional time should not be ordered. The replacement time must be at least equal to the time lost and may be up to double the amount lost, and it must be scheduled within two years of the court’s finding. The bill also directs courts to give deference to the harmed parent’s proposed schedule and to consider using a co-parenting application to help with communication and scheduling.
In addition to the parenting-time remedy, the bill creates a child custody review task force for the 2025-26 interim. The task force includes judicial, bar, legislative, parent, law enforcement, mediation, and legal services ներկայացուցիչs, and it is tasked with studying problems involving withholding a child in violation of a custody decree, false allegations connected to custody disputes, and ways to enforce custody orders more effectively. It must also consider self-help forms, artificial intelligence-assisted processes, expedited ex parte contempt procedures, and civil or criminal penalties, then report recommendations and any proposed legislation to legislative management by June 30, 2026.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new enforcement mechanism to Chapter 14-09 of the North Dakota Century Code for intentional interference with parenting time, including a potential contempt sanction for noncompliance. It also establishes a temporary legislative task force and authorizes staffing, reimbursement, and reporting requirements, which may lead to future legislation affecting custody enforcement, parenting-time disputes, and court procedures.
Overall sentiment appears generally supportive but divided. The bill passed both chambers, with stronger support in the House than in the Senate, suggesting broad interest in improving custody-order enforcement while still reflecting some concern about how the remedy would operate in practice. The lack of committee transcript detail limits insight into specific debate, but the split Senate votes indicate some lawmakers may have questioned whether mandatory make-up parenting time, contempt sanctions, or the task force’s broader study mandate could create unintended consequences in family-court disputes.
Notable points of contention likely center on the mandatory nature of the remedy, the burden of proof required to avoid additional parenting time, and the bill’s inclusion of artificial intelligence, self-help forms, and expedited ex parte contempt procedures as possible enforcement tools. Stakeholders most directly affected include separated or divorced parents subject to custody orders, family courts, mediators, law enforcement, and legal aid or self-help services.
The bill amends North Dakota family law by creating a specific statutory remedy for intentional interference with court-ordered parenting time and authorizing contempt sanctions for noncompliance. It also creates a temporary child custody review task force under legislative management, with reporting obligations that may shape future amendments to custody-enforcement statutes and court procedures.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable support. It passed both chambers, with a notably stronger House vote than Senate vote, suggesting general agreement that parenting-time interference should be addressed while also indicating some legislative hesitation about the scope and mechanics of the remedy and the task force’s study agenda.
The main areas of contention are likely the mandatory make-up parenting-time requirement, the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard needed to avoid additional time, and the possibility of contempt sanctions. Some lawmakers may also have concerns about the task force’s exploration of artificial intelligence-assisted forms, expedited ex parte contempt relief, and broader civil or criminal penalties in custody disputes. Parents involved in custody litigation are the primary affected group, with courts and family-law practitioners also directly impacted.