Cited by

that statute states that an order transferring permanent legal and permanent physical custody of a child to a relative “may” be modified using the standards under Minnesota Statutes sections 518.18 and .185 (2024), “[t]he juvenile protection statute does not give the juvenile court authority to award, much less modify, visitation under Minn. Stat. § 518.175[.]”

P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (stating that “we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (same).

(“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”) ().

Foster parents correctly note that the district court must “assess whether the proposed visitation is in the best interests of the child” under the “juvenile protection statutes.” see Minn. Stat. § 260C.511 (2024).

(reviewing district court’s best-interests determination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.511 for abuse of discretion) .

This court addressed which of these statutory provisions applies to modification of an order transferring permanent custody to a relative in

(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting visitation time); In re Welfare of Child.

(“[W]e will not reverse a correct decision simply 28 because it is based on incorrect reasons.”) (quotation omitted).

But our precedential decision in makes clear that, in a post-permanency case such as this one, juvenile-protection law applies.

6 Welfare of Child of A.H., d 96, 99 (Minn. App. 2013).

(“But ‘we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.’”) ().

(concluding in a juvenile -protection appeal that the district court did not err by applying best-interests standards of juvenile-protection statute rather than those of the parenting-time statute).4 Mother also contends that there was insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that ter

(concluding that best-interest factors of section 518.17 were “not intended to be dispositive in resolving conflicting paternity presumptions”); (concluding that district court did not err by applying best-interests standards of juvenile-protection statute rather than those of the parenting-time statute, Minn. Stat. § 518.175, when juvenile- protection statute made no reference to parenting-time standards).