Cited by

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

27 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nogodjouan Diomande, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: 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: 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: 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citations and internal quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Custody of: R. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Antoine Versabeau, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Matter of: M. V. K., d/o/b July 12, 2017, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v K.C.- W., (emphasis added) (citing C.M.G., d at 561), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
A21-1064 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(In re Welfare of C.F.N.), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: 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: 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: E. D. M., petitioner, Appellant, 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: 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.