Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.), 923 N.W.2d 325.

28 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Mezeker Getachaw Mengesha v. Mesay Solomon Hailu Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See In re Welfare of: C.F.N., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Angie Lynn Magnuson Swierzewski v. David Matthew Swierzewski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nogodjouan Diomande v. Soualiho Diomande Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Todd Charles Sherette v. Melissa Ann Sherette Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 Welfare of C.F.N., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Joseph Ming Klimmek v. Elizabeth Lynn Klimmek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Joseph Ming Klimmek v. Elizabeth Lynn Klimmek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[T]here is scant if any room for this court to question a district court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” 2 Mother also argues that the district court later erred at trial because it did not allow “a witness to testify regarding the validity of the marriage.” Again, mother d
In Re the Custody of the Children of: William Menday v. Hellda Gift Silvano Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(citations and internal quotation omitted).
In Re: The Paternity of a Female child, born June 26, 2024 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“This court applies a de novo standard of review to a district court’s determination that a party has standing to bring a paternity action.” d 325, 329 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Jamie Natalie Gore v. Seth Patrick Gore Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(quotation and citations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Beth Amy Gissibl v. Matthew Glen Gissibl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Peter William Bristol Malmstrom v. Dana Marie Colestock Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also In 4 re Welfare of C.F.N., (“[T]here is scant if any room for this court to question a district court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of: Cristina Lillian Mactaggart v. Jeffrey Allen Westad Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Veronica Velaquez Barron v. Amin Foued Abdelwahed Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“To the extent that a party challenges a district court’s findings on factual issues relevant to custody, this court applies a clear- error standard of review.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Ryan Gary Sanford v. Bethany Lynn Beilby Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citations and internal quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Sydney Reed Lesch v. John Patrick Lesch Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Towobola Abimbola Oladejo v. Olanrewaju Muideen Oladejo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citations and quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Custody of: C. R. P. and G. P. P Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A [district] court has broad discretion in making custody decisions; there is scant room if any for this court to question a district court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Matter of: Bamidele Adetifa v. Nehplainseh Pay-Bayee Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Custody of: R. J. H. Gregory Dennis Hystead v. Wendy Beth Boggs a/k/a Wendy Beth … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Antoine Versabeau v. Hana Zewde Mekonnen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: M. V. K., d/o/b July 12, 2017, Joel Steven Kangas v. Jennifer Ann … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v K.C.- W., (emphasis added) (citing C.M.G., d at 561), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Catrina M. Rued v. Joseph D. Rued Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(In re Welfare of C.F.N.), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Katherine Ella Hoene v. Matthew Arnold Kramar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[T]here is scant if any room for this court to question a di strict court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Lee Roberts n/k/a Michelle Lee Freitas v. Todd Mykle Roberts, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The district court did note that Roberts “is required to complete sex offender treatment.” But, because “there is scant if any room for this court to question a district court’s balancing of the best- interests considerations,” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. J. and T. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: E. D. M v. S. J. M., N. N. N Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2 (requiring court to assess competing presumptions based on considerations of “policy and logic ”); In re Welfare of C. F. N. , (explaining that resolving conflicting presumptions requires examination of “the particular facts of the case,” including the child’s best interests) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Michael Zelenka v. Annie Valeria Anderson, f/k/a Anne Zelenka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]here is scant if any room for this court to question a district court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.