Getting a North Dakota custody order is not the finish line. Moving out of state, asking a court to change the order, and getting the other parent to actually follow it are each governed by their own separate set of rules, and the rules are stricter than most people assume once an order already exists rather than while one is still being negotiated.
Moving Out of State Isn’t Automatic, Even With Primary Residential Responsibility
Under North Dakota Century Code Section 14-09-07, a parent who holds primary residential responsibility for a child cannot move that child’s primary residence to another state without either a court order or the consent of the other parent, if that other parent has been given parenting time under the decree. A parent with equal residential responsibility faces the same restriction, and moving without consent or a court order in that situation requires the court to also award that parent primary residential responsibility as part of allowing the move. The statute does carve out two situations where a court order isn’t required first: when the other parent hasn’t exercised parenting time for a full year, or when that other parent has already moved to another state and now lives more than fifty miles from the parent seeking to relocate.
Modifying Primary Residential Responsibility Has a Two-Year Waiting Period
North Dakota Century Code Section 14-09-06.6 puts a hard timing limit on changing who has primary residential responsibility. Unless the parents agree in writing or the parenting plan already addresses it, no motion to modify can be filed earlier than two years after the order establishing primary residential responsibility was entered, and if an earlier modification motion was already decided on its merits, a new one can’t be filed within two years of that decision either. The court can bypass this waiting period only if it finds one of three things: persistent and willful denial of or interference with parenting time, a present environment for the child that may endanger physical or emotional health, or that primary residential responsibility has, in practice, already shifted to the other parent for more than six months. Once the two-year mark has passed, the standard changes: the parent seeking modification has to show a material change in circumstances that arose from facts occurring after the prior order, or facts the court didn’t know about at the time, along with a showing that modification serves the child’s best interests. A stipulated agreement between the parents to modify, by contrast, can be approved by the court at any time.
Interference With Parenting Time Has Its Own Built-In Remedy
North Dakota does not leave a parent who is denied court-ordered time with their child to simply file a new custody motion and wait. Under Section 14-09-24, a court must award the noncustodial parent reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it finds the custodial parent has willfully and persistently denied visitation rights, and the court can use any remedy otherwise available for enforcing a child support order to enforce parenting time as well. Section 14-09-24.1 goes further: if the court finds one parent intentionally interfered with the other’s court-ordered parenting time, it must order additional parenting time to make up for what was lost, unless the interfering parent proves by clear and convincing evidence that additional time shouldn’t be ordered. That make-up time has to be at least the same type and duration as what was lost, can run up to double the amount, must occur within two years of the finding, and the court has to give deference to the wronged parent’s own proposed schedule for when it happens. Judges can also order the parents to use a co-parenting app to manage the scheduling, and noncompliance with any of this can be treated as contempt of court.
Getting the Prima Facie Showing Right the First Time Matters
Because an early modification motion under Section 14-09-06.6 is decided on briefs and affidavits alone, without an evidentiary hearing, unless the moving party first establishes a prima facie case, the paperwork filed at the outset effectively decides whether the case ever gets argued in front of a judge at all. The burden of proof sits with the parent seeking the modification, not the parent opposing it, which means an incomplete filing doesn’t just weaken the case, it can end it before a hearing is ever scheduled. Parents preparing a modification or enforcement motion under this framework often find it useful to have a firm like Gjesdahl Law, P.C. review the supporting affidavits before filing, since a motion that doesn’t clear that initial bar on paper never reaches the hearing where the underlying facts would actually get argued.
The Bottom Line
Once a North Dakota custody order exists, three separate legal mechanisms govern what happens next: relocation restrictions that apply even to a parent with primary residential responsibility, a two-year bar on modification motions with narrow exceptions, and an automatic make-up-time remedy for parenting time interference that doesn’t require starting a new custody case. Treating any of the three as informal or optional is usually the mistake that turns a straightforward enforcement or modification request into a contested one.
