Cited by

In Schisel v. Schisel, we concluded that the district court erred because it did not make 10 findings on the self-employed parent’s business expenses, “neither indicating whether there were any such expenses nor, if there were, the extent to which they were deductible.”

5 Residence and parenting time District courts have “broad discretion” to determine “issues of custody and residence.”

5, 2015) (stating that a post-decree “request to impose a locale restriction preventing the children from being moved [within the state of Minnesota] is properly interpreted as a motion to modify custody” and “would be analyzed under section 518.18(d)” (citing Goldman, d at 283 )), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Haefele, d at 708; Schisel v. Schisel , see Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2022) (noting that “gross income” includes “potential income,” if any).

(noting that appellate courts review district court’s findings on income for clear error); see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2020) (“gross income” includes “potential income,” if any).

at 369, and appellate courts apply a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s findings of gross income

When an income determination is challenged on appeal, “we look to both the court’s findings and the evidence of record to ascertain whether there has been clear error.”

(“The [district] court abuses its discretion if it erroneously applies the law to the case.”).

The “paramount issue” for the district co urt in making parenting-time determinations mus t be the “welfare and best int erests of the child.” (noting that the fundamental focus is on the child’s best interests).

The “paramount issue” for the district court in making parenting-time determinations must be the “welfare and best interests of the children.” Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, (noting that the fundamental focus is on the children’s best interests).

(“ The bedrock principle underlying any decision affecting the custody of minor children is that their best interests must b e protected and fostered.

(“The focus in granting [parenting time] is primarily the best interests of the children.”); (Minn.App.

“[T]he paramount issue remains the welfare a nd best interests of the children.” Petersen v. Petersen, 296 Minn. 147, 148, see also Schisel v. Schisel , (not ing that the fundamen tal focus is on the child’s best interests).

“The district court’s determination of net income [for purposes of calculating child support] must be based in fact and it will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.”

I. Calculation of Gross Income We will affirm the district court’s findings determining income for child-support purposes if the findings “have a reasonable basis in fact and are not clearly erroneous.” Ludwigson, d at 446 (quotation omitted); (holding that determinations regarding parents’ net incomes for child-support purposes are reviewed for clear error).

A court’s determination of income must be “based in fact” and will stand unless “clearly erroneous.”

(“A determination of net income for the purpose of calculating child support will be affirmed if it has a reasonable basis in fact.”).

–70 (Minn. App. 2009), observed that “‘[r]esidence’ is defined in the dictionary to mean the ‘place in which one lives; a dwelling,’” citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1535 (3d ed. 1992), and noted that “its common meaning refers to ‘place’ or