Sweeney v. Kirby, 826 N.W.2d 330

Kirby and Sweeney are the parents of D.L.K. (born 2004); paternity established 2006 with a child support order.
Sweeney sought primary residential responsibility in January 2011; trial Aug 22, 2011 awarded him primary residence; Kirby received supervised visitation.
Kirby later moved to modify primary residential responsibility based on alleged denial of visitation and abuse by Sweeney.
The district court denied modification without an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie case for modification.
The two-year limit under ND law triggered, and Kirby’s affidavits and records allegedly show ongoing interference with parenting time.
The court reverses and remands to hold an evidentiary hearing because Kirby made a prima facie case for modification based on interference with parenting time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case for modification based on parenting-time interference.	Kirby asserts Sweeney persistently interfered with parenting time.	Sweeney contends there is insufficient prima facie evidence of denial of time.	Kirby established a prima facie case entitling an evidentiary hearing.
Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing under §14-09-06.6(4)-(5).	A prima facie case warrants an evidentiary hearing under the two-year modification window.	Modification requires more than prima facie proof and may not occur within two years absent specific grounds.	Court remands for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to modify primary residential responsibility.

Green v. Green, 772 N.W.2d 612 (2009 ND) (prima facie standard and evidentiary support required for modification)
Schumacker v. Schumacker, 796 N.W.2d 636 (2011 ND) (prima facie case requires competent, firsthand knowledge in affidavits)
Bladow v. Bladow, 701 N.W.2d 903 (2005 ND) (evidence of parenting-time interference can support modification)