Cited by

(considering, on appeal from the distric t court’s grant of an order for protection, implicit credibility findings).

We view the re cord in the light mo st favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unl ess we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistak e has been made.” (quotations omitted).

To determine whether, using this definition, domestic abuse occurred, we have held that the district court may c onsider “the totality of the circumstances.”

See Sefkow, d at 210; d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that “district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible).

f the children.” Freitas presents no legal authority for the proposition that the GAL’s report must be disregarded as biased under these circumstances, d 716, 726 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that arguments submitted without legal authority are forfeited), and, in any even t, we defer to a district court’s credibility determinations

On review, this court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , ( quotation omitted).

(citing Kahn v. Griffin , 701 N.W .2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005) ).

Sefkow v. Sefkow , (credibility determinations); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (implicit credibility 8 determinations).

“A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.” (quotation omitted).

“An OFP is justified if a person manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on the person’s spouse.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik

See Knapp, d at 837; cf. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (deferring to an im plicit credibility determination made by the district court).

Cf. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , -100 (Minn. App. 2009) (no abuse of discretion where decision “was a close call”).

We view the record in the light most favorable to the findings and will reverse those findings only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik

To the extent that father’s factual assertions differ from mother’s assertions, we do not “reconcile conflicting evidence,” as that role is “exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).

d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009).

We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unless “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , see also Minn. R. Civ.

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (noting that district court ’s findings “implicitly indicate[d] ” that it found certain evidence credible).

“Appellate courts decide only actual controversies and avoid advisory opinions.” d 94, 97 (Minn. App. 2009) (quota tion omitted).

We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will not reverse unless we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

5 favorable to the district court’s findings, and reversal is warranted only when this court is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been ma de.”

6a(c)(2) (2018) (providing that a court may grant a subsequent OFP for a period of up to 50 years if the court finds that “the petitioner has had two or more orders for protection in effect against the same respondent”); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (concluding that the appeal of an expired OFP was not moot cons idering the collateral consequences of an OFP, includin g the extension of an OFP and t he issuance of a subsequent OFP).

“A case is moot if there is no justiciable controversy for a court to 10 decide.”

“A case is moot if there is no justiciable controversy for a court to decide.”

See Arimitsu, d at 239 (concluding absence was temporary where parents explicitly agreed that the children could remain in Japan temporarily); (Minn. 1 Mother stated in her affidavit that she and father “agree[d] to move to Washington,” and that “[she] was never sure that the move to Minnesota would be good for [H.M.B.]

When reviewing an order for protection 6 (OFP), “we review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will reverse those findings only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , 18 (stating a district court abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law).

(affirming the grant of an order for protection, noting the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard used to review the issuance of an order for protection and reasoning that “[t] he evidence was sufficient for the di strict court to infer appellant’s present intent to inflict fear of imminen

See P -100 (Minn. App. 2009) (holding the district court ’s credibility determination and fact finding could be implicit).

d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009).

” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted).

(on conflicting testimony, observing that the district court’s OFP findings “implicitly indicat[ed]” that it found certain evidence credible, and deferring to that credibility determination).

See P (“Present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including a history of past abusive behavior.”).

This court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factf inder.” Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (quotation omitted).

5 An appellate court will “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that “district court’s findings implicitly indicate[d] that the district court found [a party’s] testimony credible” and deferring to that credibility determination).

See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (“the district court found respondent’s testimony credible.