Cited by

2 Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , see In re Welfare of Child.

may put the moving party’s allegations in an appropriate context.”

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

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

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