Cited by

“A district court’s determination of the meaning of an ambiguous judgment and decree provision is a fact question, which appellate courts review for clear error.”

More recently, this court confirmed that we will not “infer [a] modification or change” “absent an agreement by the parties or an indication by the district court that it intended to modify physical custody or change the child’s primary residence.” -36 (Minn. App. 2014).

“[A] district court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions” and appellate courts “will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact that are not supported by the record.” (“The [district] court has broad discretion to determine what is in the best interests of the child in the area of visitation and its determination will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”).

(remanding a parenting schedule when the district court did not adequately explain why it imposed that schedule); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk (reversing and remanding the effective date of a child-support obligation when the district court did not adequat

(stating that a party waived an argument by failing to cite authority supporting the argument).

“There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a ‘restriction’ of parenting time.”

“Appellate courts recognize that a district court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions and will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact that are not supported by the record.” (citations omitted).

(concerning a parent who argued that her parenting time was impermissibly restricted by a modification giving increased time to the other parent), to argue that the modification was a change in R.’s primary residence and therefore a restriction of appellant’s parenting time, so that the dist

-35 (Minn. App. 2014) (“A modification of custody or a change of the child’s primary residence requires that the district court utilize the procedures set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) and associated caselaw.” (emphasis added)).2 Under section 518.18(a), “no motion to modify a custody order .

“Appellate courts recognize that a district court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions, and will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact that are not supported by the record.” (citations omitted).

Palmi v. Palmi, 273 Minn. 97, 102-03