Our case law is clear, we will not retry the case or substitute our judgment for the district court's decision merely because we might have reached a different result. Carlson v. Carlson , 2020 ND 36, ¶ 6, 938 N.W.2d 413. We conclude the court's parenting time decision is not clearly erroneous.

An order regarding primary residential responsibility and valuation and distribution of the marital estate is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Berdahl v. Berdahl, 2022 ND 136, ¶¶ 6, 9, 977 N.W.2d 294; Carlson v. Carlson, 2020 ND 36, ¶ 6, 940 N.W.2d 662. We conclude the findings regarding primary residential responsibility and valuation and distribution of property were not induced by an erroneous view of the law, there is evidence in the record to support the findings, and, after a review of the entire record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

We retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) and remanded with instructions that the district court make further findings on best-interest factor j, which considers evidence of domestic violence. Carlson v. Carlson , 2020 ND 36, 938 N.W.2d 413.[¶2] The district court issued its additional findings, and found the evidence did not trigger a presumption of domestic violence, and if a presumption did apply, it was overcome by clear and convincing evidence.