Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592.

107 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Sandee Goldsmith Becker, n/k/a Sandee Scroggs Goldsmith v. Leon L. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s supports our interpretation of the statute.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Xiaoyan Sun, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hansen v. Todnem , aff’d on other grounds
Anita M. Froderman, n/k/a Anita M. Sydorowicz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Brandt -Rucker, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: Bamidele Adetifa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hansen v. Todnem , aff’d on other grounds
In re the Marriage of: Kristina Marie Russell, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Thiele v. Stich, 10 “District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”
In Re the Matter of the Custody of A. C. T. (DOB 8/01/2018), Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hansen v. Todnem , (district courts exercise “broad discretion” when deciding custody matters).
Anita M. Froderman, n/k/a Sydorowicz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A22-1261 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hansen v. Todnem , Minn. Stat. § 518.175 (2022).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: M. V. K., d/o/b July 12, 2017, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. J. L. and M. D. C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h); - 98 (Minn. 2018) (holding that district court must consider best- interest factors in section 518.175, subdivision 8, but need not make findings on each factor).
In re the Matter of: Sean Patrick Dempsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jesse Lambert Colburn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that a district court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law, makes findings unsupported by the record, or resolves discretionary questions in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record).
In re the Custody of: O.R.K., Jeremy Peter Kubesh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
On appeal, we review a district court’s findings of fact on the best-interests factors for clear error, and the court’s balancing of those factors for an abuse of discretion
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Joseph Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court’s factual findings “regarding the best-interest factors are reviewed for clear error.”
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Ann Kuchera, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We acknowledge that “[d]istrict courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”
Miguel Lionel Garza, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court’s factual findings “regarding the best-interest factors are reviewed for clear error.”
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
is unsupported by the text of the parenting-time statutes.”
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Thomas Miller, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Joy Krishnan, f/k/a Beuning, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(eliminating the previously recognized common-law distinction between 10 substantial and insubstantial modifications of parenting time and requiring court to make adequate findings).
In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Winston Trevor Leak, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Helena Lee Leak, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Varvara Viktorovna Tishchenko, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Hansen v. Todnem , , aff’d on other grounds
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
other caselaw establishes that “the district court is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.” (); (holding “that the district court was required to consider only the relevant best-interest factors in [the parenting-time modification statute], and was not required to make specific and detailed findings on those factors” when not required by statute).
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Nieber, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard Minder III, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, (citing Goldman v. Greenwood , ).
In re the Marriage of: John Sterling Ross, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Myles John Sterling Mankus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Custody of: N. Y. B., James Edward Bono, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 592, 599 (Minn. 2018) (concluding, in the context of a request for additional parenting time under section 518.175, subdivision 8, that “parenting time modifications .
In re the Paternity of: B. L. T., T. L. M., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
on and even forfeited parenting time to evade process[,]” “failed to follow the Court’s directives as to communications with [appellant,]” and “took every opportunity to interfere with the parenting time exchanges” ; it also noted that “the record is replete with [respondent’s] hostile text messages and obstreperous conduct.” 14 App. 1984) , overruled on other grounds by Hansen v. Todnem
Michael Anthony Guardia, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Charles Robert Aufenthie, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See 20 -64 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d on other grounds
In re the Custody of: R. T. R., C. T. R., and S. C. T. R., Robby Romero, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Hansen v. Todnem , (concluding that Minn. Stat .
In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim. Minn. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Alice Jones, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Custody of P. K. M. S. and K. D. S., Jeremy Melvin Selin, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Greta Mae Markuson, n/k/a Greta Mae Garcia, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Camilla Renae Lee, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court has broad discretion to decide child custody, and parenting-time issues.
In re the Marriage of: Brett William Leschinsky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.” Hansen v. Todnem