Cited by

(recognizing that an issue may be dismissed as moot if “an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits unnecessary”).

“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”

See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , (reversing determination that litigant was a “nuisance” because “it is unclear whether the district court applied” Minn. R. Gen.

15, 2011); 294 (Minn. App. 2007) (rule 9).

When reviewing a district court’s determination of whether a movant alleged a prima facie case to modify custody, we are mindful that a movant does not allege prima facie case if the allegations are merely conclusory, are “too vague to support a finding of endangerment,” or are “devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence.” (quotations omitted); (requiring the district court, when addressing a motion to intervene, to accept the movant’s allegations unless they are “frivolo

1 (2022); -96 (Minn. App. 2007); d 813, 818-19 (Minn. App. 2001).

The Minnesota Legislature has yet to define “parenting consultant.” Generally, “the term refers to a creature of contract or of an agreement of the parties which is generally incorporated into (or at least referred to in) a district court’s custody ruling.”

A. Conduct-based attorney fees Husband argues that “[b]ecause the dissipation findings are in error, the award of conduct-based fees must be reversed.” Conduct-based attorney fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

But a prima facie case is not made if the allegations are merely conclusory, “too vague to support a finding,” or not “supported by any specific, credible evidence.” (quotations omitted); (requiring the district court, when addressing a motion to intervene, to accept the movant’s allegations unless they are “frivolous on their face”).

1 (2022); -96 (Minn. App. 2007); -19 (Minn. App. 2001).

1 (2022); -19 (Minn. App. 2001).

6 (“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the 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).

Thus, “[w]hether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”

The statutes governing dissolution and child custody do not expressly provide for a “parenting consultant.” See Minn. Stat. §§ 518.002-.68 (2022)

A movant “ma[kes] a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for modification.” see Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , (noting, in the context of addressing whether a party moving to modify custody made a prima facie case that would entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing, that allegation that are conclusory, vague, or unsupported by specific evidence are insufficient to make a prima facie case).

While these awards are within the district court’s discretion, “[t]he district court must make findings to explain an award of conduct-based attorney fees.”

1 (2020); -96 (Minn. App. 2007); - 19 (Minn. App. 2001).

Mother relies on Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, in which we affirmed the district court’s determination that appellant had failed to make a prima facie show ing of endangerment whe n the source of the alleged endangerment, mother’s father, died, thereby eliminating the only “specifically identified source of endangerment.”

See, -96 (Minn. App. 2007); - 19 (Minn. App. 2001).

Conduct-based attorney- fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” d 285, 295 (Minn. App. 2007); (“An award of attorney fees .

(-28 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming the denial of custody modification without an evidentiary hearing when the moving party’s allegations were “too vague to support a finding of endangerment”); -45 (Minn. Ap p. 1987

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

See generally Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , (noting, in the context of addressing whether a party moving to modify custody made the prima facie case that would entitle the movant to an 7 evidentiary hearing, that allegations that are conclusory, vague, or unsupported by specific evidence are insufficient to make a prima facie case).

Attorney fees Conduct-based attorney fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

See, (noting internal inconsistency in the amount of attorney fees awarded, and, 8 based on that record, resolving the inconsiste ncy in favor of the larger amount).

“Conduct-based fee awards may be awarded against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding .” Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

(affirming the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to modify custody where the allegations of endangerment were conclusory); Weber, d at 811 (affirming the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to modify custody where the motion 9 was “devoid of alle

(citing In re Application of Minnegasco, Inc., ).

See, e.g., Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. 27 App. 2007).3 Whether to award conduct-based atto rney fees generally depends on “the impact a party’s behavior has had on the costs of the litigation.” (citing this aspect of Dab

Nice-Petersen v. Nice - Petersen

In practice, the term refers to a creature of contract or of an agreement of the parties which is generally incorporated into (or at least referred to in) a district court’s custody ruling.”