In re the Custody of: K. M. A. Daniel Cory Johnson, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0466

In re the Custody of: K. M. A.
Daniel Cory Johnson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Erica Rose-Lynne Arends,
Respondent.

Filed November 5, 2018
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Yellow Medicine County District Court
File No. 87-FA-13-377

Daniel Cory Johnson, Granite Falls, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Erica Rose-Lynne Arends, Fairmont, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Schellhas, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his request for an order requiring
respondent to transport the parties ’ minor child to him for his parenting time because of
appellant’s medical travel restriction. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant-father Daniel Johnson and respondent-mother Erica Arends are the parents
of K.M.A., born in 2012. The parties never married. In April 2014, the district court granted
the parties joint legal custody of K.M.A., mother physical custody and residence, and father
parenting time of “eight weeks consisting of four hours at [mother]’s home or [D.N.]’s home.”
The district court also ordered that father was “responsible for transportation for these visits.”
At the time of the order, mother resided in Lakefield and father resided in Clara City . In
January 2015, the court amended the parenting-time schedule, granting father “parenting time
for eight hours every other weekend” until “further order of the Court.”
In October 2017, father moved the district court for parenting-time assistance,
requesting that mother be ordered to transport K.M.A. to him “due to [his] travel restrictions
due to [his] back injury.” Mother moved for a complete cessation of father’s parenting time,
claiming that “[i]t has been a little over 2 years since [father]’s last visit,” and that “[father]
has made no effort to come see [K.M.A.] since his last visit and makes no effort to even have
any communication.” Following a hearing, the district court found that requiring mother to
provide transportation for father’s parenting time “would not be in the child’s best interest,”
and denied father’s motion.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
A parent may move for parenting -time assistance to review compliance with a
district court’s order. Minn. Stat. § 518.178 (2016). A district co urt has broad discretion
when deciding parenting -time matters. Hansen v. Todnem , 908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn.

3
2018). We will not reverse a district court’s decision regarding parenting -time matters,
absent an abuse of discretion. Id. A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is based
on a misapplication of the law or is contrary to the facts or logic. Shearer v. Shearer, 891
N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017).
Here, father sought to modify an existing parenting -time order to change the
transportation responsibility for the exercise of his parenting -time with K.M.A. from him
to mother. Generally, modification of a parenting -time order is governed by Minn. Stat.
§ 518.175, subd. 5 (2016) . “Minnesota Statutes § 518.175, subd. 5(b), applies the best-
interests-of-the-child standard to modifications of ‘an order granting or denying parenting
time, if the modification would not change the child’s primary residence. ’” In re Custody
of M.J.H., 913 N.W.2d 437, 440 (Minn. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat.
§ 518.175, subd. 5(b) ). When a district court decides a request to modify parenting time
that would not change a child’s primary residence, the court is not required to make detailed
findings on each and every best-interest factor under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (2016).
See Hansen, 908 N.W.2d at 599 (“[ T]he Legislature did not intend to require detailed
findings on each and every best-interest factor when a court decides a request to modify
parenting time.”).
Father argues that, in denying his motion for parenting-time assistance, the district
court ignored his evidence when it “refused to take [his] doctor’s note regarding [his] travel
restriction due to physical pain.” But father’s argument is not supported by the recor d. At
the motion hearing, the court placed the parties under oath, and father testified extensively
about his physical condition and the contents of the doctor’s letter. The court thereafter

4
specifically found that father “submitted a letter from his physician recommending that his
car travel be limited to 30 minutes.” The court also found that father “injured his back in a
motor vehicle accident in approximately 2012”; he “suffers from degenerative disc
disease”; he has “been diagnosed with depression and anxiety”; and his physicians “are
treating his condition conservatively . . . to see if there is improvement before scheduling
any additional treatment.” The court found credible father’s claim that his ability to visit
his daughter is adversely impacted by his back problems. The court did not ignore father’s
evidence.
Father argues that in light of his physical limitations, the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion for parenting -time assistance. We disagree. The district
court expressed concern about father’s ability to supervise “a very active” K.M.A. “given
his physical limitations.” The court noted that father had had no contact with K.M.A. since
September 2015, he had seen her “only about 12 times in 5 years,” and he had not sent her
birthday or Christmas cards . The court found that requesting mother to transport K.M.A.
to father’s residence would “be inequitable to mother,” and would place the child in a
“strange surrounding” with an “unfamiliar” individual. And, while acknowledging father’s
travel restrictions due to his back pain, the court noted that father “offered no compromise
on the issue of transportation,” and that h is “position appears to be that mother should
provide all transportation, or it will not take place.”
In addressing K.M.A.’s best interests, the district court found that K.M.A.’s best
interests would not be served by requiring mother to transport her to father’s residence in
order to facilitate father’s parenting time. The district court’s findings are supported by the

5
record, and father has not established that the court misapplied the law or made a decision
that is contrary to the facts or logic. See Midway Ctr. Assoc s. v. Midway Ctr. , Inc., 237
N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (“[O]n appeal error is never pre sumed. It must be made to
appear affirmatively before there can be reversal. Not only that, but the burden of showing
error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted)). We conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s motion for parenting-time assistance.
Affirmed.