Regan v. Lervold, 2014 ND 56

Married in 2003; one son age nine at May 2013 hearing.
California ordered shared parenting with Regan as primary in school year and Lervold with summer primary; joint legal custody; required communications and medical/psych evaluation.
Venue moved from Sacramento to Rolette County in April 2011.
Custody investigator appointed in 2012; report found co-parenting not working and conflict.
May 2013 evidentiary hearing on modification; telephonic testimony request denied; district court denied modification.
This Court reverses and remands for consideration of best-interest factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion on telephonic testimony	Lervold sought telephonic testimony from out-of-state witnesses	Court had discretion; telephonic testimony could be denied	No abuse; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification	New reports show conflict; child harmed by parental hostilities	No material change; evidence focused on prior concerns	Material change occurred; reversed and remanded for best-interest analysis

Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2008 ND 111 (ND 2008) (trial court broad discretion in evidentiary matters; abuse of discretion requires arbitrariness or irrational basis)
Ehli v. Joyce, 2010 ND 199 (ND 2010) (frustration of visitation may justify modification of custody)
Bladow v. Bladow, 2005 ND 142 (ND 2005) (visitation frustration can be a factor in modification analysis)
Seibold v. Leverington, 2013 ND 173 (ND 2013) (material change defined as important new fact not known earlier)
Krueger v. Tran, 2012 ND 227 (ND 2012) (hostility and parenting disputes can constitute material change)
Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31 (ND 2010) (open hostility between parents may affect child and support modification)