Cited by

Lewis --70 (Minn. 2006).

See Minn. Stat. §§ 257C.01- .05 (2024); Lewis-Miller v. Ross , - 70 (Minn. 2006).

5 “This court’s review of a district court’s third-party custody determination is limited to whether the court abused its discretion.” ().

(applying this aspect of Thiele in a family-law appeal).

Therefore, which only entitles a third party to an evidentiary hearing when the facts alleged, if proven, would satisfy section 257C.03, subdivision 7.

(applying this aspect of Thiele in a family-law appeal).

20, 2010); 16 (“Appellate review of custody determinations is generally limited to determining whether the district court has abused its discretion.”).

In PurCo Fleet Servs., Inc. v. Idaho State Department of Finance, 90 P.3d 346 (2004), relator also argued that its recovery activities on rental-vehicle damage claims did not amount to collection on “a claim or other indebtedness.” In interpreting “claim,” the Idaho Supreme Court adopted the same interpretation of that term as used in 12 Ross, (“When interpreting legislative enactments, we must presume that the legislature intended its statutes to be ‘effective,’ and not productive of ‘absurd .

(declining to address an issue “neither litigated below nor passed on by the district court”).

-69 (Minn. 2006); (stating that appellate courts review de novo whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted on custody-modification motion).

d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006).

8(a)(2)-(3); -69 (Minn. 2006).

See Lewis-Miller v. Ross , .

“The aim of statutory analysis is to effectuate the intent of the legislature,” (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022), and we presume that the legislature intends an entire statute to be effective and does not intend the production of an unreasonable or absurd result, Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2022).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has referred to these three factors as the “child-endangerment factors.”

“However, the interpretation and construction of statutes are questions of law that [appellate courts] review[] de novo.”

Lewis-Miller v. Ross , d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006).

d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006).

- 83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court) ; (applying this aspect of Thiele in a family law appeal).

However, the interpretation and construction of statutes are questions of law that [appellat e courts] review de novo.” Lewis - (citation omitted).

5 (applying Thiele in a custody dispute).

Michaels v. First USA Title , LLC, ; see Lewis- Miller v. Ross , (applying this aspect of Thiele in a family law appeal).

“Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.” aff’d

Lewis -d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006) (Lewis-Miller II).

However, the interpretation and construction of statutes are questions of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Lewis-Miller v. Ross , (citation omitted) .

7(a) (2018); (Lewis-Miller II).4 The three child-endangerment factors are that: (i) the parent has abandoned, neglected, or otherwise exhibited disregard for the child’s well -being to the extent that the child will be harmed by living with the parent; (ii) placement of the child with the individual take