Cited by

294 (Minn. 2017) (reversing a court of appeals decision that included reasoning that a temporary custody order had become a de facto permanent order due to “the passage of such a substantial amount of time” (quotation omitted)).

“Under section 518.18(d), the district court must first determine whether the party seeking to modify the custody arrangement has made a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for modification.” Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Minnesota Statutes section 518.18 (2024) governs modification of custody orders following entry of a J& (discussing an earlier version of section 518.18).

“The interpretation of procedural rules,” however, “presents a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

y custody if the moving party establishes “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical 12 health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” accord Minn. Stat. § 518.18(c)-(d) (2024).

Generally, we do not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal; “[n]or may a party obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” (quoting this aspect of Thiele).

Indeed, the district court made express findings about the domestic abuse—which occurred before the May 2019 final judgment and decree, when the district court awarded the parties joint legal custody pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon resolution—and Meyer, () (other citations omitted).

(stating a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”); (applying this aspect of Thiele in a family-law appeal).

The party seeking to modify custody has the burden to meet the requirements for modification set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) because that statute “governs the modification of custody orders after a judgment and decree.”

see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2022).

Section 518.18(d)(iv) “governs the modification of custody orders after a judgment and decree.”

And a party may not “obtain [appellate] review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” Id.; (quoting Thiele); (“[L]itigants are bound [on appeal] by the theory or theories .

6 Additionally, we have held that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” Thiele, d at 582

Crowley v. Meyer , see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv).

has made a prima facie case for modification.”

ant must set forth allegations that show: “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best 7 interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2022) (providing for custody modification based on endangerment).

st find that four elements are established: “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv).

Second, if the party moving for custody modification makes a prima facie showing, “the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion, during which the parties may present evidence on each factor.” Woolsey, d at 508 (-94 (Minn. 2017)).

ngerment, the movant has the burden to show: “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2022) (providing for custody modification based on endangerment).

See Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2022)

(holding that a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”) ; (quoting this aspect of Thiele).

onderance of the evidence that a change in circumstances has occurred that endangers the minor child while in Mom’s care and custody.” But the district court went on to state that “[i]n evaluating the best interests of the child to address parenting time, the Court must development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.”

st find that four elements are established: “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environment endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” -94 (Minn. 2017); see also Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (providing for the modification of custody based on endangerment).

See Thiele v. Stich , (noting that appellat e courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court); (applying Thiele in a family -law appeal).

d 288, 293 (Minn. 2017).

court must find that four elements are met: “(1) the circumstances of the children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s best interests; (3) the children’s present environm ent endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” (listing elements for ma king a prima facie case for modification of custody based on endangerment); see also State ex rel.

ture joint physical custody.” Mother asserts that the hearing requirement “is not supported by any factual findings, or by any record evidence or testimony presented at trial, and is contrary to statutory procedural requirements for the potential modification of custody.” “ Minnesota Statutes § 518.18 governs the modification of custody orders after a judgment and decree.”

h, if taken as true, would establish “(1) the circumstances of th e children or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the children’s be st interests; (3) th e children’s present environment endangers their physical health, emotional health, or emotional development; and (4) the benefits of the change outweigh it s detriments with resp ect to the children.” Crowley v. Meyer

A party may neither raise a new issue on appeal nor “obtain review by raising the same general issue liti gated below but under a different theory.” Id.

otional health or impairs the child’s emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.” “Under section 518.18, the district cour t must first determine whether the party seeking to modify the custody arrangement in the judgment and decree has made a prima facie case for modification.” 3 (Minn. 2017).

(quoting Crowley v. Meyer , (M inn.

Such a restraining order is typically called a harassment restraining order , or HRO.1 See

And a party cannot raise a new issue on appeal, “[n]or may a party obtain 14 review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” d 288, 293 (Minn. 2017).

(d)(iv); Crowley v. Meyer , Geibe v. Geibe