Cited by

–31 (Minn. App. 2018) ().

(stating district court can deny motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing if moving party fails to make prima facie case); (stating that, “[a]t the prima-facie-case stage of the proceeding, [the movant] need not establish anything.

See Woolsey, d at 507 (Minn. 2022); (“At the prima-facie-case stage of the proceeding, [a party seeking relief] need not establish anything.

at 569; (stating a party makes a prima facie case for relief by “alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for [the relief sought]”); Amarreh v. Amarreh , (“At the prima-facie-case stage of the proceeding, 6 [a party seeking relief] need not establish anything.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [she] seeks.” (emphasis omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(noting that a movant making a prima facie case of endangerment “need not establish anything” and “need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief” sought).

[The relative] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [the relative] seeks.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief he seeks.” (emphasis omitted).

es of the child[] or custodian have changed; (2) modification would serve the child[]’s best interests; (3) the child[]’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.” (quoting Christensen, d at 440), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Sharp, d at 263-64 (noting that endangerment analysis properly includes evidence of conduct reasonably anticipated to adversely impact children’s well-being); -32 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that district court abused its discretion by dismissing father’s endangerment-based custody- modification motion without evidentiary hearing when father alleged that mother substantially interfered with father’s relationship with his children).

A movant makes a prima facie case for relief by “alleging facts that, if true, would provide sufficient grounds for modification.” (“At the prima-facie-case stage of the proceeding, [the movant] need not establish anything.

DECISION Father first argues that the district court failed to properly consider the application of Amarreh v. Amarreh , to the facts of this case.

“The existence of endangerment must be determined on the particular facts of each case.” (quotation omitted).

-08 (Minn. 2022) (citations omitted); (stating that “[a]t the prima-facie-case stage of the proceeding, [the movant] need not establish anything,” but rather “need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [the movant] seeks”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing, this court first considers “de novo whether the district court properly treated the allegations in the [movant]’s affidavits as true, disregarded the contrary allegations in the [opponent]’s affidavits, and considered only the explanatory allegations in the [opponent]’s affidavits.” -31 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(propriety of an evidentiary hearing), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 228, 230 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(discussing parental alienation), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

for denying or modifying custody.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2001); -87 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming modification of custody based on expert’s opinion that mother’s inability or unwillingness to support a healthy relationship between her son and his father posed “a real and serious danger” to son’s healthy development); d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2018) (addressin g “[i]nterference with a parent-child relationship, or parental alienation”).

In reviewing the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to modify custody, we first consider “de novo whether the district court properly treated the allegations in the [movant]’s affidavits as true, disregarded the contrary allegations in the [opponent]’s affidavits, and considered only the explanatory allegations in the [opponent]’s 10 affidavits.” -31 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted).

16 “‘The concept of “endangerment” is unusually imprecise’” and depends “on the particular facts of each case.” Goldman, d at 285 (); (quotation omitted) .

-32 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“The existence of endangerment must be determined on the particular fact s of each case.” (quotation omitted).

In the analogous context of a motion to modify custody, we have stated that “[a]t the prima- facie-case stage of the procee ding, [the movant] need not establish anything,” but “need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [the movant] seeks.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , rev. 1 We understand the reference to a “prima facie showing” in section 260C.607 to be synonymous with a “prima facie case” as used in caselaw.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if tr ue, would allow the district c ourt to grant the relief [the movant] seeks.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [the movant] seeks.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief he seeks.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

[The moving party] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief he seeks.” 6 Amarreh v. Amarreh , review denied (Minn. Oct.

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, would allow the district court to grant the relief [the movant] seeks.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

as support for her argument that the district court erred.

(district court determines whether a party has stated a claim for modification of custody by examining the “moving party’s affidavits.”); (stating that, generally, appella te courts consider only those questions previously presented

[The movant] need only make allegations which, if true, wo uld allow the district court to grant the relief [the movant] seeks.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , (emphasis in original), review denied (Minn. Oct.

-32 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2018) governs such a motion and “requires a court to retain the custody arrangement that was established by the prior order unless the party seeking the modification makes a prima facie case for modification.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , (quoting In re Custody of M.J.H.

In determining whether there has been such a change in circumstances, the distric t court should consider “unwarranted denial of, or interference with, a duly established parenting time schedule.” Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2018); see also Amarreh v. Amarreh , (observing that such interference may justify modifying custody), review denied (Minn. Oct.

That statute “requires a [district] co urt to retain the custody arrangement that was establishe d by the prior order unless the party seeking the modification makes a prima facie case for modification.” Amarreh v. Amarreh , ().