They allege they were thereby denied their constitutional right to procedural due process. [¶ 15] The district court has broad discretion over the presentation of evidence and the conduct of a trial or hearing. E.g., Niemann v. Niemann, 2008 ND 54, ¶ 19, 746 N.W.2d 3; Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 7, 737 N.W.2d 243; Manning v. Manning, 2006 ND 67, ¶ 30, 711 N.W.2d 149; Gullickson, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 15, 678 N.W.2d 138. In exercising that discretion, the court may impose reasonable restrictions upon the length of the trial or hearing and upon the number of witnesses allowed.

" Wessman v. Wessman, 2008 ND 62, ¶ 12, 747 N.W.2d 85. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 9, 737 N.W.2d 243 (quoting Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153, ¶ 6, 718 N.W.2d 552). "Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we do not reweigh the evidence or 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." Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶ 11, 729 N.W.2d 157. This standard of review is particularly relevant when the district court makes "a difficult child custody decision involving two fit parents.

" Wessman v. Wessman, 2008 ND 62, ¶ 12, 747 N.W.2d 85. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 9, 737 N.W.2d 243 (quoting Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153, ¶ 6, 718 N.W.2d 552). "Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we do not reweigh the evidence or 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." Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶ 11, 729 N.W.2d 157. This is particularly relevant "for a difficult child custody decision involving two fit parents.

Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 ND 37, ¶ 13, 640 N.W.2d 38. [¶ 11] A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence supports it, or if the reviewing court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 9, 737 N.W.2d 243 (citation omitted). Under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, we do not reassess evidence or credibility of witnesses nor retry a custody case nor substitute our judgment for a district court's decision merely because we might have reached a different result.

[¶ 12] ERS contends it was not given as much time as the Jalberts to present its case. "The district court has broad discretion over the presentation of evidence and the conduct of a trial or hearing. E.g. , Niemann v. Niemann , 2008 ND 54, ¶ 19, 746 N.W.2d 3 ; Burns v. Burns , 2007 ND 134, ¶ 7, 737 N.W.2d 243 ; Manning v. Manning , 2006 ND 67, ¶ 30, 711 N.W.2d 149 ; Gullickson [v. Kline ], 2004 ND 76, ¶ 15, 678 N.W.2d 138. In exercising that discretion, the court may impose reasonable restrictions upon the length of the trial or hearing and upon the number of witnesses allowed.

A “continuance is the proper remedy for a party claiming surprise.” Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 7, 737 N.W.2d 243. Steven Johnson must show that, through surprise caused by the amendment, he was unable to prepare a defense to the new claim or that he was otherwise prejudiced by the implicit grant of permission to amend. See Witthauer v. Burkhart Roentgen, Inc., 467 N.W.2d 439, 442–43 (N.D.1991); Vasichek v. Thorsen, 271 N.W.2d 555, 562 (N.D.1978); Dardis v. Eddy Bros., 223 N.W.2d 674, 680 (N.D.1974).

The personal representative did not claim surprise, and after given the opportunity to do so, presented no testimony on his behalf. See, e.g., Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 7, 737 N.W.2d 243 (“continuance is the proper remedy for a party claiming surprise”). We agree with the court's analysis of this notice issue:

" 2007 ND 134, ¶ 17, 737 N.W.2d 243. [¶ 20] Under factor (e), we look to "[t]he permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home."

" Wessman v. Wessman, 2008 ND 62, ¶ 12, 747 N.W.2d 85. "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 9, 737 N.W.2d 243 (quoting Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153, ¶ 6, 718 N.W.2d 552). "Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we do not reweigh the evidence or 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." Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶ 11, 729 N.W.2d 157. This is particularly relevant "for a difficult child custody decision involving two fit parents.

Erik Isaacson did not object to the evidence offered by Traci Isaacson. Nor did he claim surprise or request the opportunity for additional time for discovery and supplementation of the record. Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶ 7, 737 N.W.2d 243. Therefore, Erik Isaacson is precluded from raising the issue for the first instance on appeal. Klose, 524 N.W.2d at 96.