Cited by

of L.L.P., (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision that movants had not met their burden to obtain an evidentiary hearing on their motion for adoptive placement).

of L.L.P., (citing Szarzynski in a child placement dispute).

-71 (Minn. App. 2013); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd.

of L.L.P., d 563, 570 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing Szarzynski in a child placement dispute).

-71 (Minn. App. 2013); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd.

In juvenile-protection cases, “it is well-settled that a rule displaces an inconsistent statute with respect to matters of court procedure.”

of L.L.P., see Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd.

(reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision that movants had not met their burden to obtain an evidentiary hearing on their motion for adoptive placement).

See generally n.3 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting section 250C.607 “does not address whether a relative or foster parent must intervene to become a party in order to move to be considered an adoptive placement”).

“A motion for adoptive placement is analogous to a motion to modify custody.”

(reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision that movants had not met their burden to obtain an evidentiary hearing on their motion for adoptive placement).

(applying the Boland standard in an adoptive-placement appeal).

-71 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that an appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on whether a prima facie case for adoptive placement has been made under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd.

571 (Minn. App. 2013) (adoptive placement); Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , , 292 (Minn. App. 2007) *69 (modification of custody); Sanderson v. State , , 226 (Minn. App. 1999) (ineffective assistance of counsel).

n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating we decline to address arguments unsupported by legal analysis or citation).

-71 (Minn. App. 2013) ( comparing motions for adoptive placement to motions for custody modification, and concluding that an appellate court reviews such decisions for an abuse of discretion).

(stating that “district court’s determination as to the existence of a prima facie case for modification [of custody] is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”); (noting that “a relative or foster parent seeking to be an adoptive placement must file a motion and supporting documents that allege a prima facie case that the agency has been unreasonable in failing to make the requested adoptive placement” and stating that “we review the district court’s

is court has previously held that a summary denial of a motion for adoptive placement under section 260C.607, subdivision 6, is reviewed under the same standards that apply to a dismissal of a motion for custody modification, reasoning that “[a] motion for adoptive placement is analogous to a motion to modify custody.” In re Welfare of 13 L.L.P.

But “conclusory allegations do not support a prima facie case” for custody modification, d 563, 571 (Minn. App. 2013), and “do not require an evidentiary hearing,”