Cited by

“[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.”

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

Goldman v. Greenwood , .

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).

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

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).

” In re Marriage of 3 Goldman, (quotations omitted).

” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted).

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

A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” leaving us with a “definite and firm convictio n that a mistake has been 4 made.” (quotation omitted).

The concept of endangerment is “unusually imprecise.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation omitted ).

Goldman v. Greenwood , , 282 (Minn. 2008) (citations omitted).

A factual fi nding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” Putz v. Putz , leaving the 4 reviewing court with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistak e has been made.” (quotation omitted).

is limited to considering ‘whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Goldman v. Greenwood , ( (quoting Pikula v. Pikula , )).

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

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

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

See Goldman v. Greenwood , , 281-82 (Minn. 2008).

“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 omitted) (citation omitted).

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

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

Appellate review of custody-modification determinations “is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” d 279, 281-82 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).

To establish a prima facie case, the party seeking custody modification must allege that: (1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health,, emotional he

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2016)

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 omitted).

(stating that an appellate court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations ); Foster v. Foster , (“[W]e are not permitted to reweigh the evidence when reviewing a district court’s decision to determine whether the court abused its discretion.”)