Cited by

Apungu appeals.2 DECISION We review a magistrate’s decision to modify or establish child support for an abuse of discretion.3 -56 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d on other grounds, (stating that the standard of review for a magistrate’s decision “is the same as it would be if the decision had been made by a district court”).

“A district court’s findings of fact underlying a parenting-time decision will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” d 51, 59 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds

“Our review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

In considering a motion to modify parenting time, the district court need only consider the relevant best-interests factors in section 518.17, subdivision 1, and is “not required to make specific and detailed findings on those factors when considering [the movant’s] modification request.”

n.2 (Minn. 2018); (“The findings and conclusions of a district court must be detailed, specific and sufficient enough to enable meaningful review by this court.” (quotation omitted)).

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

This interpretation of Christensen is supported by the supreme court’s

The district court has “broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

7 “District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

Father counters that the district court’s findings are sufficient because section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), only requires that the district court review relevant factors, and, the district court was not required to make specific detailed findings on every relevant statutory factor.

2 “District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.” d 118, 123 (Minn. App. 2009) ( ) (“The district court has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.

B. Credibility Determinations “The district court must make sufficient findings to enable appellate review.” n.2 (Minn. 2018).

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

5(b) (2024); -97 (Minn. 2018).

n.2 (Minn. 2018) (stating that absent statutory requirement for specific findings, district court need only make findings sufficient to enable appellate review).

The district court’s factual findings “regarding the best-interest factors are reviewed for clear error,” which precludes an appellate court from weighing the evidence or engaging in factfinding, In re Civ.

(legal questions); (factual findings).

But the supreme 10 court has recognized that section 518.17 “applies to the creation and initial approval of parenting plans .” Hansen v. Todnem , (emphasis added).3 This case involves a transfer of custody, not the creation and initial approval of a parenting plan.

But the supreme court has recognized that Minn. Stat. § 518.17 “applies to the creation and initial approval of parenting plans.” Hansen v. Todnem , (emphasis added).

d 592, 596 (Minn. 2018).

.” see also Hansen v. Todnem , (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to modifications of parenting time).

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”

“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”