Cited by

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Ramirez v. Luna (In re Custody of A.L.R.), (quotation omitted).

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

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).