Cited by

5 “This court’s review of a district court’s third-party custody determination is limited to whether the court abused its discretion.” ().

(“This court’s review of a district court’s third-party custody determination is limited to whether the court abused its discretion.”); Suleski v. Rupe , (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to parenting- time decisions).

-69 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing the evolution of the law on this point).

(Minn. App. 3 Gould filed his ex parte motion in the original paternity action, while the Robinsons filed their ex parte motion in conjunction with their petition.

- 69 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing the evolution of the law on this point).

“If a statute, construed according to ordinary rules of grammar, is unambiguous, a court may engage in no further statutory construction and must apply its plain meaning.”

parenting time.” (stating that third- party custody determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

“If a statute, construed according to ordinary rules of grammar, is unambiguous, a court may engage in no further statutory construction and must apply its plain meaning.”

(“Although Lewis–Miller [II] addressed different circumstances, the common-law parental presumption that was discussed extensively in N.A.K.

Neither Minn. Stat. § 260C.619 nor the relevant defi nitional statute, Minn. Stat. § 260C.603 (2018), defines “exceptional circumstances.” But this court has defined similar language in the third -party-custody context as “circumstances of a grave or weighty nature.” -71 (Minn. App. 2013) (defining “extraordinary circumstances” under Minn. Stat. § 257C.03, subd.

A district court abuses its discretion “by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the general wording of a provision “must be interpreted to include only matters of the same kind or class as those specifically enumerated.” -71 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted).