Cited by

rning to the third step, we have explained: “Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.” Id.; (stating that “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); Nice - (explaining that, if a moving party fails to make a prima facie case, the district court “[is] require[d] .

“Under section 518.18(d), the district court must first determine whether the party seeking to modify the custody arrangement has made a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for modification.” Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.” Szarzynski, d at 292; (stating that “an evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled” if a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody); (explaining that, if a moving party fails to make a prima facie case, district court “[is] require[d] .

(holding that a party moving to modify custody must present sufficient evidence of endangerment to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing).

to deny [the] motion[.]” Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

§§ 1901-1963 (2018) (ICWA), and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 260.751-.835 (2024) (MIFPA); and (2) to deny their petition without an evidentiary hearing.

The change in circumstances since the prior order must be “significant.” d 471, 472 (Minn. 1981).

aff’d in part and rev’d in part, to argue that a district court does not have the authority to modify prior orders on its own initiative.

He contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because (1) requires one; (2) the district court could not rely on the BFA without an evidentiary hearing to allow father to cross-examine the evaluator and the witnesses she interviewed in preparing the BFA; and (3) an evidentiary hearing is required for a district court to restrict parenting time.

2 We note that section 518.18, subdivision (d)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v), provides alternative bases upon which the court can grant a custody-modification motion.

to deny [the] motion.” see Szar zynski v. Szarzynski , (citing this aspect of Nice-Petersen).

to deny [the] motion.” Nice-Petersen v. Nice -Petersen, (citing this aspect of Nice-Petersen).

to deny [the] motion for modification of a custody order.”

1 See Minn. Stat. 518.18 (2020); Englund v. Englund , d 800, 802 (Minn. App. 1984) (“If the affidavits accompanying the motion for modification do not allege sufficient facts to allow a cour t to reach the findings required by § 518.18, the trial court is required to deny the motion.” ().

See Lewis-Miller II, d at 569 (applying a two -stage procedure for third-party custody proceedings similar to custody-modification procedure) ( (requiring district court to deny motion for custody -modification and evi dentiary hearing unless affidavits allege sufficient facts that, if true, would justify modification)).

Nice-Petersen v. Nice - Petersen

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen , 72 (Minn. 1981)

App. 1984) (citing Nice-Peterson v. Nice-Peterson , ).

App. 1984) (citing Nice-Peterson v. Nice-Peterson , ).

“If the affidavits accompany ing the motion for modification do not allege sufficient facts to allow a court to reach the findings required by [section] 518.18, the [district] court is required to deny the motion.” Englund v. Englund , (citing Nice-Peterson v. Nice - Peterson, ).

6(a), (b) (2018) (adoptive placement); Nice-Peterson v. Nice -Peterson, (modification of custody).

D E C I S I O N A district court “is accorded broad discretion in its consideration and disposition of a motion to modify an award of child custody made incident to a judgment and decree of marital dissolution.”

See Nice–Petersen v. Nice –Petersen, (finding no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing when affidavits failed to set forth a change of circumstances justifying modification); (finding that no evidentiary hearing is required “ where the affidavits do not contain

(“[T]he burden is upon the movant to establish satisfactorily on a preliminary basis that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances from the time when the original or amended custody order was issued.”).

See, 779-80 (Minn. App. 1997).

Importantly, “a proponent of change is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon showing a prima facie case for the requested modification.”

Goldman, d at 284; (stating that a moving party’s burden is to allege facts—rather than gather evidence—sufficient to justify modification).

The movant must support the motion with “an affidavit setting forth facts in support of the modification.”

(“[T]he trial court shall review the documents and schedule an evidentiary hearing [on the motion to modify custody] if that review indicates a likelihood that the movant might establish the requisite change of circumstances upon which a modification may be based.”).