[¶ 1] Elena R. Kohout appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Farming-ton, Dow, J.) awarding David S. Rearick primary residence and sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties’ minor child, and requiring that Kohout’s contact with the child be supervised.

[¶ 2] Contrary to Kohout’s contentions, when viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see Young v. Young, 2015 ME 89, ¶ 2,120 A.3d 106, the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings and conclusions regarding the child’s best interests. 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) (2014).

[¶ 3] Pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(4) (2014), however, a judgment awarding parental rights and responsibilities must include

[a] statement that each parent must have access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental and school records and other information on school activities, whether or not the child resides with the parent, unless that access is found not to be in the best *292 interest of the child or that access is found to be sought for the purpose of causing detriment to the other parent. If that access is not ordered, the court shall state in the order its reasons for denying that access.

As Kohout correctly argues, the judgment here did not include a statement regarding the nature and extent of the parties’ access to records, and we therefore remand this matter so that the court may supplement the judgment in order to satisfy this statutory requirement. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Remanded to the District Court to amend the judgment in conformity with 19-A M.R.S. § 1658(2)(D)(4) (2014).