Goetz v. Goetz, 988 N.W.2d 553

Joshua and Cassandra Goetz divorced in 2018 and share two minor children.
The original judgment awarded Cassandra primary residential responsibility by agreement; Joshua had every-other-weekend parenting time and the parties shared decision-making except daycare and spiritual matters (given to Cassandra).
In February 2021 Joshua moved to modify primary residential responsibility, alleging Cassandra interfered with his contact, expressed animus toward his new family, and initiated an unwarranted welfare check during his parenting time.
After two evidentiary hearings the district court awarded equal residential responsibility and gave Joshua primary decision-making authority.
The district court found Cassandra’s animus and manipulation of the parenting plan negatively impacted the children but also described the children as "rather normal," and it did not expressly find whether the material change caused a general decline or adversely affected the children.
The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded, instructing the district court to make specific findings within 30 days about whether the material change resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether modification of primary residential responsibility (filed >2 years after prior order) was supported by a material change and necessary for the children's best interests	Joshua: Cassandra's interference, animus, and co‑parenting failures constitute a material change requiring modification to equal residential responsibility	Cassandra: District court failed to make required findings showing the change adversely affected the children or caused a general decline	Court: Findings were insufficiently specific under Kunz; remanded for specific findings whether the change produced a general decline or adversely affected the children
Whether awarding Joshua primary decision‑making responsibility was proper	Joshua: Granting primary decision‑making is warranted by the co‑parenting problems and children's interests	Cassandra: Assignment of decision‑making was unsupported without findings tying the change to children's welfare	Court: Did not affirm; tied to remand—district court must make the required factual findings before appellate review can proceed

Queen v. Martel, 980 N.W.2d 914 (N.D. 2022) (standard of review for residential responsibility findings is clearly erroneous)
Haag v. Haag, 875 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2016) (modification after two years requires material change and best‑interests showing)
Kunz v. Slappy, 965 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 2021) (district courts must find whether changed circumstances caused a general decline or adversely affected the child when granting modification)
Anderson v. Spitzer, 974 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 2022) (reversal where modification lacked findings tying changed circumstances to adverse effects on the child)
Curtiss v. Curtiss, 886 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2016) (remand required when district court fails to make sufficient factual findings)