SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶1] Marsha Brouillet appeals from a divorce judgment that granted primary residential responsibility for the parties' two younger children to Bradley Brouillet, awarded him child support, and divided the parties' marital estate. We conclude the district court's award of primary residential responsibility for the two children, finding of Marsha Brouillet's income in
[¶2] Bradley and Marsha Brouillet were married in September 2008. He was 33, and she was 32 years old at the time of trial. The parties had resided together since 2002, separating in 2013, and had two children together, born in 2010 and 2006. Marsha Brouillet also had a child born in 2003. At the time of trial, the oldest child believed Bradley Brouillet was her biological father, but in fact she has a different biological father, who is subject to a child support obligation. In October 2013, Bradley Brouillet sued for divorce. In December 2014, the district court held a two-day bench trial.
[¶3] The district court entered a divorce judgment dividing the parties' assets and debts, granting Bradley Brouillet primary residential responsibility for the younger two children with Marsha Brouillet receiving parenting time, and ordering her to pay child support. While Marsha Brouillet retained primary residential responsibility for the oldest child, the court granted Bradley Brouillet parenting time with the oldest child as the child's psychological parent.
[¶4] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01.
[¶5] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court erred in applying the best interest of the child factors for determining primary residential responsibility for the two younger children by granting Bradley Brouillet primary residential responsibility.
[¶6] Section 14-09-06.2(1), N.D.C.C., provides factors for evaluating the best interests and welfare of the child in awarding primary residential responsibility. The best-interest factors include:
N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1).
[¶7] Our standard of review on appeal from the district court's decision on primary residential responsibility is well-established:
Schlieve v. Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 8, 846 N.W.2d 733.
[¶8] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court erred in granting Bradley Brouillet primary residential responsibility, because it is in the children's best interest to be with her. She argues the court erred by splitting the primary residential responsibility of the three minor children between the parents, awarding the oldest to her and the younger two children to the father. She also contends the court erred in giving inadequate weight to the testimony of the oldest daughter.
[¶9] Marsha Brouillet essentially argues on appeal that the district court's findings under the factors are clearly erroneous or the court improperly weighed the testimony. She argues the court erred in considering specific items under factor (m), such as her smoking, her previous child abuse conviction, and her decision to call the oldest child as a witness, because those issues should have been considered under other "germane" factors.
[¶10] She argues the district court also erred in applying the "moral fitness" factor (f), contending the court's specific examples of her dishonesty did not specifically
[¶11] The district court, however, explicitly considered and made findings on the factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). In its analysis based on the evidence from trial, the court found that factors (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h) weighed evenly between the parties; factors (a), (d), (f), and (m) weighed in favor of Bradley Brouillet; factor (k) weighed in favor of Marsha Brouillet, and factors (i), (j), and (l) did not apply. The court also gave heightened consideration to factor (k) based on the separation of the oldest child from her siblings. The district court found that the impact of the separation would be lessened by a parenting plan which provides continuing interaction of the children and that the father demonstrated stability and willingness to provide appropriate guidance, as opposed to the mother's poor judgment. The court found that, "while not ideal," the father should have primary residential responsibility for the younger two children.
[¶12] We have said a district court generally does not need to do a "line-by-line best-interest analysis" for each individual child. Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 25, 846 N.W.2d 733. "When the factors are in fact different for each child, then such an analysis is permissible and under some circumstances may be necessary; nevertheless, courts should be cautious about dividing custody of children." Id. (citing Gravning v. Gravning, 389 N.W.2d 621, 622-23 (N.D.1986) ("courts are cautious about dividing custody of children"); Stoppler v. Stoppler, 2001 ND 148, ¶ 7, 633 N.W.2d 142 ("split custody of siblings is generally disfavored")). Here the court explained, while it weighed factor (k) in favor of Marsha Brouillet, that weight was tempered by several facts:
[¶13] While the district court's decision in this case divides custody of the
[¶14] Further, while Marsha Brouillet argues the district court did not give proper weight to the oldest child's testimony, the court specifically considered her testimony, finding it lacked maturity and did not significantly favor her mother, her preference with whom to live had limited relevance, and her responses were general in nature and did not provide information that was unavailable from other witnesses. "Under the clearly erroneous standard, we do not reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not retry a custody case or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial custody decision merely because we might have reached a different result." Schlieve, 2014 ND 107, ¶ 23, 846 N.W.2d 733 (quoting Wolt, 2010 ND 26, ¶ 7, 778 N.W.2d 786 (quotation marks omitted)).
[¶15] On the basis of our review, we conclude the district court did not misapply the law or improperly consider the best-interest factors in making its residential responsibility determination. We therefore affirm the award of primary residential responsibility of the younger two children to their father.
[¶16] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court erred as a matter of law in applying the child support guidelines to decide her child support payment.
[¶17] We have articulated the standard of review for child support decisions:
Conzemius v. Conzemius, 2014 ND 5, ¶ 33, 841 N.W.2d 716 (quoting Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶¶ 11-12, 590 N.W.2d 215).
[¶18] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court improperly imputed her income in determining her child support obligation. She contends her most recent tax return shows an annual income of $13,019, and the court imputed income to her of $20,111, which constitutes a mistaken application of N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(3).
[¶19] Generally, this Court has said that when a child support obligor is underemployed, the district court may impute income to the obligor under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(3), which requires using the greatest imputed income resulting from three different methods of measuring earning capacity. Brandner v. Brandner, 2005 ND 111, ¶ 16, 698 N.W.2d 259.
[¶20] We have also outlined, however, how a district court should calculate an obligor's income:
Sonnenberg v. Sonnenberg, 2010 ND 94, ¶ 15, 782 N.W.2d 654 (quoting Heinle v. Heinle, 2010 ND 5, ¶ 38, 777 N.W.2d 590).
[¶21] In this case, the district court did not find Marsha Brouillet was either unemployed or underemployed to justify imputing income to her under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(3). Rather, the district court made findings that the income reflected on her 2013 tax return did not reliably indicate her future income:
[¶22] The district court considered her 2013 income tax return, which reflected gross income of $13,019. The court stated, "Tax return information is generally the basis for computation of an individual's child support obligation liability, unless it is determined that the tax return information does not accurately reflect the obligor's income earning capacity." The court then made specific findings based on her testimony at trial showing that her 2013 tax return was not a reliable indicator of her future income:
[¶24] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court erred in determining the equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities.
[¶25] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1), the district court is required to make an equitable distribution of all the divorcing parties' marital property and debts. "All property held by either party, whether held jointly or individually, is considered marital property, and the court must determine the total value of the marital property before making an equitable distribution." Fugere v. Fugere, 2015 ND 174, ¶ 8, 865 N.W.2d 407 (quoting Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2013 ND 48, ¶ 9, 828 N.W.2d 510). After the property is valued, the court must equitably divide the marital estate in consideration of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines:
Fugere, at ¶ 8 (quoting Feist v. Feist, 2015 ND 98, ¶ 6, 862 N.W.2d 817). "Our law does not require a set formula or method for dividing marital property; rather, the division is based on the particular circumstances of each case." Fugere, at ¶ 8 (quoting Hoverson, at ¶ 10). Although the property division need not be equal to be equitable, the district court must explain a substantial disparity. Fugere, at ¶ 8. The court's distribution of marital property is a finding of fact, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at ¶ 7.
[¶26] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court erred in determining the equitable distribution of the marital assets and debts by distributing a 2007 Toyota Highlander to her and making her assume the monthly payments for the vehicle, as well as by dividing the rest of the marital debts to be split between the two parties. She argues the only item that the parties had differed on was the 2007 Toyota Highlander, which had a book value of $16,000 and a loan debt of $18,194. She contends, however, that she was willing to take on certain debt only in exchange for Bradley Brouillet's continuing to make the monthly payments on the Toyota of $406 per month.
[¶27] Here the district court found that the parties would both have significant debts but that both parties should be self-sufficient. The court put significant weight on the fact the parties were generally in agreement on the allocation of assets and debts. While Bradley Brouillet did not believe either party could afford to make the Toyota payments, Marsha Brouillet testified she wanted to retain the vehicle and hold him responsible for the payments. The court ultimately allocated the vehicle with the debt to her, leaving it to her to decide whether she wanted to retain the vehicle and service the debt.
[¶28] The district court considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and allocated $18,650 of assets and $31,554 of debt
[¶29] We conclude the district court's equitable distribution of the marital property and debts was not clearly erroneous.
[¶30] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court abused its discretion in allowing a Facebook photograph into evidence without proper foundation.
[¶31] Generally, whether to admit photographs into evidence is within the district court's discretion. See Hamilton v. Oppen, 2002 ND 185, ¶ 22, 653 N.W.2d 678. Whether an adequate foundation has been laid also lies within the sound discretion of the district court. See Sorenson v. Slater, 2011 ND 216, ¶ 16, 806 N.W.2d 183; Piatz v. Austin Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 ND 115, ¶ 17, 646 N.W.2d 681. For example, in State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 24, 777 N.W.2d 617, this Court discussed the foundational requirements for admitting text messages and looked to other courts that held "similar electronic messages were authenticated by circumstantial evidence establishing the evidence was what the proponent claimed it to be." We also said the "proper foundation for the picture of the text message required sufficient evidence that the picture was what it purported to be." Id. at ¶ 28; see also N.D.R.Ev. 901.
[¶32] Nonetheless, "[a] touchstone for an effective appeal of an issue requires the issue to be properly raised in the district court so that court can intelligently rule on the issue." Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 13, 777 N.W.2d 617 (citing State v. Osier, 1999 ND 28, ¶ 14, 590 N.W.2d 205). Rule 103(a)(1), N.D.R.Ev., provides "[a] party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and . . . if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context."
[¶33] Marsha Brouillet argues the district court abused its discretion in ruling on her objection to the lack of foundation for admission of the Facebook photograph that Bradley Brouillet offered into evidence. She contends the court erred when it stated that if the objection was made for lack of foundation, it would stop the proceeding and charge the party making the objection with the cost of seeking a source to establish foundation for the Facebook photograph. The trial transcript, however, shows the exhibit was received after her attorney withdrew the objection:
(Emphasis added.)
[¶34] Even if the district court abused its discretion in ruling on the necessary foundation for the exhibit, see Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 28, 777 N.W.2d 617, Marsha Brouillet's attorney withdrew her objection to the exhibit. We therefore conclude she did not preserve this issue for appeal.
[¶35] We have considered Marsha Brouillet's remaining arguments and conclude they are either unnecessary to our decision or without merit. The judgment is affirmed.
