[¶ 1] Joshua Ritter appeals a district court’s second amended judgment denying his motion for equal residential responsibility. Ritter also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for “clarification and/or modification.” We conclude the district court’s findings on the best interest factors are not clearly erroneous, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ritter’s motion for “clarification and/or modification,” and the district court followed our mandate by holding an evidentiary hearing on remand. Ritter v. Ritter, 2016 ND 16, ¶ 15, 873 N.W.2d 899. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).