Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106

Lyn Karjalainen (formerly Schroeder) and Travis Schroeder share two children; original 2007 stipulated divorce judgment awarded joint custody; 2010 amended judgment awarded Travis primary residential responsibility after relocation disputes.
Both parents later relocated: Karjalainen planned a move to Omaha, Nebraska; Travis moved to Florida in May 2013 and kept the children there for his primary-residence period.
In July 2013 Karjalainen moved to amend the 2010 judgment seeking primary residential responsibility; both parties submitted affidavits and Travis sought contempt for Karjalainen’s alleged failure to return the children on schedule.
The district court found a material change in circumstances because both parents relocated but denied Karjalainen’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, concluding she failed to establish a prima facie showing that modification was necessary for the children’s best interests; the court ordered immediate return of the children to Travis.
Karjalainen appealed the denial, arguing her affidavits provided competent, firsthand evidence warranting a hearing on modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Karjalainen established a material change in circumstances	Relocations of the parties (and related effects on children) constitute material change	Relocation alone insufficient to require change of primary residential responsibility	Court: Material change existed (both parties relocated)
Whether Karjalainen established a prima facie case that modification is necessary for children’s best interests	Affidavits show visitation frustration, children’s distress, school concerns, unsafe grandfather home, and child preference for Nebraska	Affidavits are conclusory, contain hearsay, lack firsthand basis and evidentiary support; opposing affidavits rebut key concerns	Court: Karjalainen failed to show prima facie case; no evidentiary hearing required
Whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing	An evidentiary hearing is required if prima facie case is shown on affidavits	No hearing unless moving party’s affidavits meet prima facie standard with competent facts	Court: No hearing because affidavits lacked competent, admissible evidentiary facts
Whether the district court properly ordered return of the children	Karjalainen’s refusal to return children lacked legitimate justification	Travis sought enforcement of existing custody order	Court: Return order affirmed; Karjalainen’s failure to comply unjustified

Schumacker v. Schumacker, 796 N.W.2d 636 (establishes prima facie affidavit standard and de novo review)
Blotske v. Leidholm, 487 N.W.2d 607 (prima facie change must adversely affect child’s interests)
Alvarez v. Carlson, 524 N.W.2d 584 (affidavits must support modification by evidentiary facts)
Mock v. Mock, 673 N.W.2d 635 (parental relocation can be a material change)
Anderson v. Jenkins, 837 N.W.2d 374 (frustration of visitation may justify hearing when supported by specific evidence)