[¶ 5] “District courts must award primary residential responsibility of children to the party who will best promote the children's best interests and welfare.” Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 5, 825 N.W.2d 245 (quotation omitted). “A district court has broad discretion in awarding primary residential responsibility, but the court must consider all of the relevant factors under N.D.C.C. § 14–09–06.2(1).”

[¶15] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2), the district court must "grant such rights of parenting time as will enable the child to maintain a parent-child relationship that will be beneficial to the child, unless the court finds, after a hearing, that such rights of parenting time are likely to endanger the child's physical or emotional health." "In awarding visitation to the non-custodial parent, the best interests of the child, rather than the wishes or desires of the parents, are paramount." Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 17, 825 N.W.2d 245 (quoting Bertsch v. Bertsch, 2006 ND 31, ¶ 5, 710 N.W.2d 113).

When the court does not provide sufficient findings, "[w]e are left to speculate whether factors were properly considered and the law was properly applied, leaving us unable to perform our appellate function." Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 23, 825 N.W.2d 245. "Without the necessary findings, the award of attorney's fees must be reversed and remanded."

[¶47] Because the district court did not adequately explain its decision denying Wendy Willprecht’s request for attorney’s fees, we are unable to determine whether the court properly considered the factors and whether it properly applied the law. Deyle v. Deyle , 2012 ND 248, ¶ 23, 825 N.W.2d 245. We remand for reconsideration and for the court to make adequate findings explaining its decision.

"[A]bsent a reason for denying it, some form of extended summer visitation with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if a child is old enough." Deyle v. Deyle , 2012 ND 248, ¶ 19, 825 N.W.2d 245 ; Dschaak v. Dschaak , 479 N.W.2d 484, 487 (N.D. 1992). Here, the district court did not explain why Erman was not given a block of extended parenting time at some point during the year.

" That order was entered more than five months prior to the DIS Order. There was mention at the time of sentencing that the guardian ad litem fees could be "revisited at a later date," but nothing in the DIS Order reserved the issue of guardian ad litem fees. "If there is a discrepancy between a trial court’s oral and subsequent written statements, the written statements control." Deyle v. Deyle , 2012 ND 248, ¶ 18, 825 N.W.2d 245 (quoting Brown v. Brodell , 2008 ND 183, ¶ 12, 756 N.W.2d 779 ). [¶ 8] The statement in the May 2017 Order that the County shall pay the guardian ad litem fees "subject to future reimbursement considerations" was not carried over to the DIS Order. Because the DIS Order is appealable as a final judgment and reserved no issues for further resolution, the district court lost jurisdiction when the time for appeal expired.

" Id. Further, "[a]bsent a reason for denying it, some form of extended summer visitation with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if a child is old enough." Deyle v. Deyle , 2012 ND 248, ¶ 19, 825 N.W.2d 245. We have remanded for reconsideration a denial of extended summer visitation "[a]bsent an explanation or reason for the trial court's failure to grant some sort of extended summer visitation."

Because the court did not award attorney's fees only for the contempt and it did not make any findings about Rasmussen's need, its findings are insufficient and we are unable to perform our appellate function. SeeDatz v. Dosch , 2014 ND 102, ¶ 23, 846 N.W.2d 724 (holding the court abused its discretion because it only made findings on the party's ability to pay without balancing the other party's need); Deyle v. Deyle , 2012 ND 248, ¶ 23, 825 N.W.2d 245 (remanding for reconsideration and an explanation after holding the district court did not adequately explain its decision). Therefore, we reverse the district court's order of attorney's fees and costs and remand for reconsideration and further findings.

” Rebel v. Rebel, 2013 ND 116, ¶ 20, 833 N.W.2d 442; Hammeren, 2012 ND 225, ¶ 30, 823 N.W.2d 482. “A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶ 20, 825 N.W.2d 245. The failure to award interim child support may constitute error as a matter of law. Hammeren, at ¶ 30 (citations omitted).

Dschaak v. Dschaak, 479 N.W.2d 484, 487 (N.D.1992)....Deyle v. Deyle, 2012 ND 248, ¶¶ 17, 19, 825 N.W.2d 245. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no evidence to support it, if the finding is induced by an erroneous view of the law, or if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Clark v. Clark, 2006 ND 182, ¶ 18, 721 N.W.2d 6. “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.”