Cited by

DECISION A district court has “broad discretion in determining custody matters.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION “Appellate review of custody modification and removal cases is limited to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations and citations omitted).

“The concept of endangerment is unusually imprecise, but a party must demonstrate a significant degree of danger to satisfy the e ndangerment element of section 518.18(d)(iv).” Goldman v. Greenwood , (emphasis 3 Father also suggests that the district court made insu fficient findings to permit “meaningful appellate review.” We disagree.

(noting that appellate courts defer to dis trict court’ s opportunity to weigh and evaluate witness credibility); Morrisette v. Harrison Int’l Corp., (recognizing that “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder”).

Stat. § 518.18 (listing requirements and legal standard) ; see also Goldman v. Greenwood , (applying Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) in an endangerment context); In re Welfare of B.K.P.

Finally, we note that parties may, and often do, ask the district court to modify the meaning of terms defined by statute or caselaw , such as joint legal custody and primary residence.3 See, e.g. , Goldman v. Greenwood , -81 (Minn. 2008) (reviewing grant of sole legal custody with added restriction against moving child out-of- state); (stating that “we must accept the label of joint legal .

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); d 279, 285 (Minn. 2008) (citing this as pect of Minn. R. Civ.

285 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

See id.; (explaining that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

-83 (Minn. 2008) (holding that modifying custody requires proof that “the child[ren]’s present environment endangers the child[ren]’s physical or emotional health or impairs the child[ren]’s emotional development” and balancing “the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment” against “the advantage o

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

See, (citing Goldman v. Greenwood , ).

Appellate courts “normally interpret ‘or’ as disjunctive, rather than conjunctive.”

.” (emphasis added)); see also Goldman v. Greenwood , (stating “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

(recognizing that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

A district court has “broad discretion in determining custody matters.” (quotation omitted).

“Findings of fact are 7 clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (M inn.

P. 61 (requiring ha rmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

This court will “set aside a district court’ s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving deference to the distri ct court’s opportunity to ev aluate witness credibility.”

See Goldman v. Greenwood , d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) (stating that findings of fact will be sustained unless they are clearly erroneous).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of rule 61); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).

“Appellate review of custody modifica tion and removal cases is limited to considering whether the [dis trict] court abused its di scretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Goldman v. Greenwood, 6 84 (Minn. 2008) (q uotations omitted); see also Dahl v. Dahl , (“The district c ourt has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issu es and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”).

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

See Goldman v. Greenwood , (stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations and citations omitted).

(providing that reviewing courts defer to the credibility det erminations of district court s); Minn. R. Civ.

“A district court is required under section 518.18(d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.” Goldman v. Greenwood

d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008).

(stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

P. 61 (stating that harmless error is to be ignored) ; (concluding that district court’s error did not require reversal because its ultimate conclusion “that respondent failed to make a prima facie case of other elements of section 518.18(d)” was correct and noting that un der rule 61 courts are to disregard harmless error).

(quotation and citation omitted).

Goldman v. Greenwood , ().

But when the issue turns on the district court’s findings of fact, we review the findings for clear error, “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility” and reversing only if we are left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A district court is required under section 518.18(d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.”

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with th e definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation and citations omitted).

See, (stating that an evidentiary hearing is required when a par ty seeking to modify a custody or der establishes a prima facie case for modification).

“[T]he endangerment element of [Minn. Stat.] § 518.18(d)(iv) is concerned with whether the child’s present environment endangers the child’s physical or emotional health or impairs the child’s emotional development.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).

This court will “set aside a district court’s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”