Cited by

d 670, 675 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that this court “cannot review the district court’s determination that relief was not available under the Domestic Abuse Act” because “the 9 record does not reflect the district court’s consideration of the statutorily mandated factors”); (stating that in domestic relations cases a high regard is given to the trial court’s discretion, but “in view of that broad discretion, it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a

For meaningful appellate review, “it is especially important that the basis for the [district] court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.”

(recognizing the district court’s broad discretion in family cases, but noting that “in view of that broad discretion, it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”).

27, 2001), support their position that the district court erred by considering the amount of time the child spent in grandfather’s primary care after these proceedings were initiated.

to support his argument that denying him custody based on the potential disruption to A.L.R.

1See, -31 (Minn. 1971) (grandparents); State ex rel.

[their] decision (e.g., spousal maintenance, child support, parenting time) as well as the underlying reason(s) for that decision (i.e., findings showing why the amount of maintenance, child support or parenting time is appropriate in the particular case).” - 18 (Minn. App. 2012) ( ).

See Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 81-82, Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 266-67, -66 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Jan.

see also Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, (stating that, in domestic relations cases, “it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”).

(stating, in a dispute over an award of spousal maintenance, that “[e]ffective appellate review of the [district court’s] discretion is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration of [all relevant factors]”); Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, d 627, 631 (1971) (stating that, given the district court’s broad discretion in family cases, it is particularly important that the basis for its decision be set forth with a

at 217-18 ( (stating, in spousal-maintenance context, that “[e]ffective appellate review of the exercise of [the district court’s] discretion is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration [of all relevant factors]”); Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, (stating that, given the district court’s broad discretion 6 in family cases, it is especially important that the basis for its decision be set forth with a high deg

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding most of the farmland and farm equipment to respondent without any “finding or rationale or explanation as to why [it] divided the real property the way [it] did.” Appellant cites Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, a child custody case, for the proposition that when a district court has broad discretion, the district court’s decision must “be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be mea

15(a) (2014) (stating that “‘[m]ust’ is mandatory”); Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, (stating that “it is especially important that the basis for the district court’s [custody-related] decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”).

But the district court should set forth its basis for parenting-time determinations “with a high degree of particularity.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, (noting that district courts have broad discretion in domestic cases generally, but that “in view of that broad discretion, it is especially important that the basis for the court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”).

“[I]t is especially important that the basis for the [district] court’s decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful.” Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 266

See, (stating, in spousal-maintenance context, that “[e]ffective appellate review of the exercise of [the district court’s] discretion is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration [of all relevant factors]”); Wallin v. Wallin, 290 *218 Minn. 261, 267, (stating that, given the district court’s broad discretion in family cases, it is especially important that the basis for its decision be set forth with a high degree

(quoting Wallin v. Wallin,, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , ).

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264-65 , -30 (1971); (noting that biological parents are entitled to custody unless parental shortcomings exist or parental custody is not in the best interests of the child), review denied (Minn. Mar.

(citing Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264 , ).

(citing Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264-65 , -30 (1971)).

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264-65 , -30 (1971) (emphasis added).

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264-65 , -30 (1971) (emphasis added).

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264

Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 264

Jaroszewski v. Prestidge, 249 Minn. 80, 89 , — erroneously attributed to Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261 , — and the supreme court’s observation in an earlier case that in order to grant custody to a third party, there must be “a grave reason growing out of neglect, abandonment, incapacity, moral delinquency, instability of character, or inability to furnish the child with needed care.” State e

The standard for granting custody to a non-parent over the objection of a biological parent was set out by the supreme court in Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261