[¶1] Laura Bubel appeals from a district court order denying her motion to modify joint residential responsibility to primary residential responsibility. On appeal, Laura Bubel argues the court erred in concluding she failed to present a prima facie case requiring modification.
[¶2] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4), the district court must deny a motion to modify primary residential responsibility unless the court finds the moving party has established a prima facie case justifying a modification. A prima facie case “consists of facts sufficient to support a finding of a material change in circumstances and that a change in residential responsibility is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 7, 963 N.W.2d 278. A prima facie case justifying a modification of primary residential responsibility and, therefore, an evidentiary hearing, is established by a material change in circumstances “which either ‘requires’ a change of custody for the childs best interests or ‘fosters’ or ‘serves’ the childs best interests.” Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106, ¶ 7, 846 N.W.2d 716. In cases involving a motion to modify joint residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6), the movant must show a material change in circumstances and show modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child; however, in the context of a relocation case, the movant is not required to show the material change has adversely impacted the child. Kunz v. Slappy, 2021 ND 186, ¶ 22, 965 N.W.2d 408 (relying on Dunn v. Dunn, 2009 ND 193, ¶ 11, 775 N.W.2d 486).
[¶3] We need not address whether Laura Bubel has demonstrated a material change in circumstances, because under our de novo standard of review she has not shown how a change to primary residential responsibility is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. See Johnshoy v. Johnshoy, 2021 ND 108, ¶ 9, 961 N.W.2d 282 (holding failure to show change is necessary to serve the best interests of the child fails to establish a prima facie case). Laura Bubel has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Per Curiam.
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte