Ashley Marie Cull v. Andrew James Cull

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ashley Cull’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility for the parties’ children. The court held she failed to establish a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances and that modification was necessary to serve the children’s best interests, emphasizing the need for competent, firsthand evidence.

Holdings

1. When a party seeks modification of primary residential responsibility more than two years after the prior order, the party must establish a prima facie case showing a material change in circumstances based on facts arising since and unknown at the time of the prior order, and that modification is necessary to serve the child's best interests. The party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only after making that prima facie showing.
2. Extended-family involvement in childcare does not constitute a material change in circumstances absent competent evidence that the arrangement adversely affects the children. A parent's occupation cannot serve as a new basis for modification when the occupation and its demands were known to the court when the prior residential-responsibility order was entered.
3. Evidence that children are experiencing behavioral or academic difficulties does not establish a prima facie material change without competent evidence connecting those difficulties to the other parent's parenting or residential arrangement.
4. Potential endangerment may constitute a material change in circumstances and support an evidentiary hearing, but an isolated incident does not automatically establish a material change. Here, the January 22, 2025 pickup incident did not establish a prima facie case because the competent evidence showed no pattern of endangerment, deliberate neglect, or systemic failure in Andrew's care.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ashley Cull established a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing on modification of primary residential responsibility.
2. Whether the district court improperly disregarded or weighed Ashley Cull's declarations and supporting materials.
3. Whether extended-family childcare, the children's behavioral and academic difficulties, or an isolated safety lapse constituted a material change in circumstances.

Disposition

affirmed