Hageman v. Hageman, 827 N.W.2d 23

In 2006, Amber Sagert and Nick Hageman were divorced with joint custody of their child K.N.H. and a Grand Forks/East Grand Forks residence focus.
The 2009 stipulated judgment required the child to remain in the Grand Forks area and allowed modification if either parent relocated outside that area.
Sagert moved from Grand Forks to St. Thomas, North Dakota, in 2010, later marrying Jordan Sagert and working in his crop-consulting business.
Hageman remained in Grand Forks; both continued joint custody on a rotation schedule as of the hearing date.
Sagert filed to modify primary residential responsibility after registering the Minnesota judgment in North Dakota; Hageman moved to modify as well.
The district court awarded Hageman primary residential responsibility, applying ND Century Code provisions for post-judgment modification and evaluating best-interest factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether modification of primary residential responsibility was proper under the best interests framework.	Sagert contends she provided stable, primary caregiving and that the court erred in factor analysis.	Hageman argues relocation and distance render the prior arrangement impractical and supports a change to favor his custody.	Yes; court did not clearly err in ordering modification to Hageman.
Whether factor (m) improperly relied on the parties' prior stipulation to determine best interests.	Sagert asserts reliance on the stipulation imposes an improper burden and ignores current evidence.	Hageman maintains factor (m) appropriately acknowledges the parties’ stipulation and totality of findings.	No; court’s application of factor (m) was not clearly erroneous.
Whether the district court properly applied the statutory burden and standard of review for modification.	Sagert argues the evidence supports continued placement in Grand Forks and challenges the weight given to factors.	Hageman contends the court properly weighed the best-interest factors and viewed evidence in light of relocation.	Yes; the district court’s fact-findings and weighing of factors were not clearly erroneous.

Siewert v. Siewert, 758 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2008) (material change standard for modification of custody)
Maynard v. McNett, 710 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2006) (original determination when joint primary residential responsibility; relocation context)
Zeller v. Zeller, 640 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 2002) (courts may not be bound by stipulations; custody must serve best interests)
Wetch v. Wetch, 539 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1995) (stipulated custody decisions require independent consideration of best interests)
Haroldson v. Haroldson, 813 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2012) (modification framework for primary residential responsibility)
Neustel v. Neustel, 790 N.W.2d 476 (N.D. 2010) (clear standard for modification and best interests)
Zeller (additional citation), 640 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 2002) (binding effect of stipulations and modification considerations)
Seay v. Seay, 820 N.W.2d 705 (N.D. 2012) (best interests framework and consideration of all factors)