Opinion ID: 2643582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The child’s present environment may endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development

Text: N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(5). The legislature has adopted a non-exhaustive list of factors that must be considered by the court, when applicable, in determining whether a change in primary residential responsibility is in the best interest of a child. See N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). [¶5] “Upon a motion to modify primary residential responsibility under this section, the burden of proof is on the moving party.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(8). If the court finds the moving party established a prima facie case justifying modification, then the court will set a date for an evidentiary hearing. N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). A prima facie case is established by the moving party “alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if they remained uncontradicted at an evidentiary hearing, would support a [primary residential responsibility] modification in her favor.” Tank v. Tank , 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9, 673 N.W.2d 622 (citing Volz v. Peterson , 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7, 667 N.W.2d 637). A prima facie case does not require facts which, if proved, would mandate a change of [primary residential responsibility] as a matter of law. A prima facie case only requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of [primary residential responsibility] that could be affirmed if appealed. See Volz , 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8, 667 N.W.2d 637. A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1209 (7th ed. 1999). It is a bare minimum. Tank , at ¶ 12. “Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge.” Sweeney v. Kirby , 2013 ND 9, ¶ 5, 826 N.W.2d 330 (quoting Schumacker v. Schumacker , 2011 ND 75, ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 636). [¶6] There are two situations in which a court may find that a prima facie case has not been established: 1) the opposing party presents counter affidavits conclusively establishing the allegations of the moving party have no credibility, or 2) the moving party’s allegations are insufficient on their face to justify modification. Tank , 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9, 673 N.W.2d 622 (citing Volz , 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8, 667 N.W.2d 637). However, “the trial court must accept the truth of [the moving party’s] allegations and may not weigh conflicting allegations.” Tank , at ¶ 32 (citing Volz , at ¶ 14). “Merely offering explanations or conflicting details is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4).” Tank , at ¶ 32. [¶7] If the opposing party conclusively establishes the allegations of the moving party have no credibility, the prima facie case is rebutted and the trial court may deny the moving party’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Tank , 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9, 673 N.W.2d 622 (citing Volz , 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8, 667 N.W.2d 637). “However, if the opposing party fails to meet that burden, an evidentiary hearing must be held to resolve conflicting evidence and determine whether [primary residential responsibility] modification is warranted.” Tank , at ¶ 9 (citing Volz , at ¶ 8).