Ritter v. Ritter
2016 ND 16
| N.D. | 2016Background
- 2012 divorce stipulated Tara McDonald has primary residential responsibility; Joshua Ritter’s parenting time by mutual agreement; plan adopted by district court.
- 2015 Joshua filed motion to modify to equal residential responsibility based on a material change in circumstances from his new employment.
- Joshua’s affidavit claimed his move to a predictable in-state schedule constitutes a material change; he previously worked out-of-state with unpredictable hours.
- Tara opposed, alleging Joshua’s new schedule was inaccurate and noting Tara remarried; Joshua maintained remarriage as a second material change.
- District court denied modification, finding no material change; court treated two-year limit for prima facie case and required a hearing if prima facie shown.
- Court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing, holding Joshua’s employment change establishes a prima facie case; remand may consider remarriage but not required to resolve prima facie issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Joshua's new employment amount to a material change? | Ritter: employment change is material. | McDonald: schedule change may not alone meet standard for primary residence. | Yes; prima facie established due to material change. |
| Is Tara's remarriage a material change necessary to modify custody? | Ritter: remarriage corroborates material change. | McDonald: remarriage already anticipated; not required to decide here. | Remarriage not needed to decide prima facie issue. |
| Was a prima facie showing required and properly evaluated for modification of primary residential responsibility? | Ritter: prima facie case shown; merits hearing warranted. | McDonald: district court properly denied without prima facie showing. | Court held prima facie case shown; entitled to evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106 (ND) (defines material change in circumstances for modification)
- Schumacker v. Schumacker, 2011 ND 75 (ND) (material change and best interests standard; de novo review of prima facie)
- Kartes v. Kartes, 2013 ND 106 (ND) (prima facie threshold as a preliminary stage for modification)
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 2012 ND 225 (ND) (work schedule as consideration in custody determinations)
- Young v. Young, 2008 ND 55 (ND) (work schedule can be material to visitation; scheduling relevance)
- Hageman v. Hageman, 2013 ND 29 (ND) (consider all relevant evidence in custody decisions when revisiting stipulations)
- Joyce v. Joyce, 2010 ND 199 (ND) (prima facie standard as threshold evidence)
- Vining v. Renton, 2012 ND 86 (ND) (best interests factors for modification decisions)
- Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221 (ND) (best interests standard and custody considerations)