In re the Custody of: A. L. D.,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0007

In re the Custody of: A. L. D.,

Michael Anthony Davis, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Amanda Lee Lewis,
Respondent.

Filed September 8, 2020
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-FA-12-63

David Sjoberg, Sjoberg Law Office, P.A., Ham Lake, Minnesota (for appellant)

Patrick A. Doran, Miller & Stevens, P.A., Forest Lake, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
COCHRAN, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district court’s order granting respondent-mother’s
motion to relocate with their ch ild to Nevada, arguing that th e district court abused its

2
discretion in granting the motion. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion,
we affirm.
FACTS
Father and mother, who have never been married, have one child together, A.L.D.
In 2013, the district court entered an order awarding father and mother joint legal custody
of A.L.D., and granting mother sole physical custody. The order provided that father would
have parenting time with A.L. D. on alternating weekends. 1 The parties entered into the
custody and parenting-time arrangement pursuant to an agreement.
In July 2019, mother brought a motion to relocate with A.L.D. from northern
Minnesota to Nevada because she had accepted a new job in Nevada. Father, who lives in
the Twin Cities, opposed the motion. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the
motion in October 2019. Moth er, father, and father’s significant other testified at the
hearing.
Mother’s primary motivation for moving to Nevada was the job that she accepted.
She also wanted A.L.D., who is biracial, to attend a more divers e school, and to allow
A.L.D. to take advantage of cheerleading and gymnastics opportunities—two activities that
A.L.D. enjoys.
Prior to accepting the job in Nevada, mother worked full-time as a registered nurse
in Duluth. Sh e also worked thr ee to four shifts per week doing in-home health care in
Moose Lake. Mother submitted three years’ tax returns show ing her taxable income as

1 During the school year, the weekend consisted of Friday to Sunday. During the summer,
the weekend stretched from Wednesday to Sunday.

3
evidence at the hearing. Moth er testified that the job she accepted in Nevada paid more
money and required her to work fewer hours than her jobs in Minnesota did. Mother also
testified that the benefits offered at her new job in Nevada were superior to those offered
by her Minnesota employers. Moreover, mother testified that she had found an apartment
to rent in Nevada, and that the rent and cost of living there would be less than in Minnesota.2
Mother testified about D’Vorre & Hal Ober Elementary (D’Vorre), the school that
A.L.D. would attend if she relocated to Nevada. Mother had visited D’Vorre and met with
A.L.D.’s would-be teacher. Mother testified that D’Vorre is more diverse than A.L.D.’s
school in Duluth. She also testified that Nevada schools ranked highly in math and reading
scores, and that the student-to-teacher ratio in Nevada schools was approximately 18:1.
And mother testified about he r belief that there were more cheerleading and gymnastics
opportunities in Nevada than in Minnesota.
Mother proposed a parenting-time schedule that provided father with more total
parenting time than the original order. Moth er indicated that she was willing to reserve
father’s child-support obligation if he put that money towards A.L.D.’s airfare between
Minnesota and Nevada.
Father testified that his relationship with A.L.D. would be harmed if A.L.D. moved
to Nevada. He testified that mother could have found a similar job in Minnesota if she had
explored opportunities in the Twin Cities. He produced evidence demonstrating that the
average nurse salary in the Twin Cities is comparable to that in Las Ve gas. Father also

2 Mother moved to Nevada before the heari ng on her motion. During that time, A.L.D.
stayed with mother’s significant other in Minnesota.

4
testified that schools in Minnesota were ge nerally better than those in Nevada, and
submitted evidence that compared Minnesota schools, in gene ral, to Nevada schools.
Father’s significant other testif ied that she believed that A.L. D. would likely grow apart
from father if she moved to Nevada.
After the evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order granting mother’s
motion, concluding that mother had met her burden of proof that relocating A.L.D. was in
the child’s best interest. The district court ordered that father would have parenting time
on certain specified dates during the school year, and parenting time for the majority of the
summer. The district court’s order provided father with more total parenting time than its
original 2013 custody and parenting-time order. Father moved the district court to amend
its findings and order or to grant a new trial. The district court denied the motion. Father
appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Father challenges the district court’s order allowing mother to relocate A.L.D. to
Nevada. Minnesota Statutes section 518.175, subdivision 3(a) (2018) provides that “[t]he
parent with whom the child resides shall not move the residence of the child to another
state except upon order of the court or with the consent of the other parent, if the other
parent has been given parenting time by the d ecree.” In determining whether to grant a
parent’s request to move the child to another state, the district court must consider the best
interests of the child, including:
(1) the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of
the child’s relationship with th e person proposing to relocate

5
and with the nonrelocating person, siblings, and other
significant persons in the child’s life;

(2) the age, developmental stag e, needs of the child, and the
likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical,
educational, and emotional development, taking into
consideration special needs of the child;

(3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
nonrelocating person and the ch ild through suitable parenting
time arrangements, considering the logistics and financial
circumstances of the parties;

(4) the child’s preference, taking into consideration the age and
maturity of the child;

(5) whether there is an establis hed pattern of conduct of the
person seeking the relocation eith er to promote or thwart the
relationship of the child and the nonrelocating person;

(6) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general
quality of the life for both the custodial parent seeking the
relocation and the child including, but not limited to, financial
or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;

(7) the reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the
relocation; and

(8) the effect on the safety and welfare of the child, or of the
parent requesting to move the child’s residence, of domestic
abuse, as defined in section 518B.01.

Id. (b) (2018). When no domestic abuse has occurred, as is the case here, the parent seeking
relocation carries the burden of proof that re location is in the child’s best interest. Id.
(c) (2018).
“Appellate review of custody modifica tion and removal cases is limited to
considering whether the [dis trict] court abused its di scretion by making findings
unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Goldman v. Greenwood,

6
748 N.W.2d 279, 2 84 (Minn. 2008) (q uotations omitted); see also Dahl v. Dahl ,
765 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Minn. A pp. 2009) (“The district c ourt has broad discretion in
determining parenting-time issu es and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that
discretion.”). Appellate courts “set aside a dist rict court’s findings of fact only if clearly
erroneous, giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness
credibility.” Goldman, 748 N.W.2d at 284. “Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where
an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Father asserts that the district court made clearly erroneous findings concerning
several best-interests factors set forth in the st atute, and that the district court abused its
discretion in concluding that re locating to Nevada was in A.L. D.’s best interests. With
regard to the best-interests factors, father limits his challenge to factors two, three, and six.3
Father also argues that the district court abused its discretion in ultimately concluding that
relocating to Nevada is in A.L.D.’s best interests because mother failed to seek comparable
employment in Minnesota. We first address th e district court’s findings on each of the
best-interests factors challenged by father and then turn to father’s argument that mother
should have been required to seek in-state employment before seeking to relocate A.L.D.
to Nevada.

3 Father does not challenge the remaining fact ors. The district court’s findings on these
unchallenged factors reflect that it considered these factors to be relatively neutral to
A.L.D.’s best interests.

7
A. The district court’s findings regardi ng the second factor are not clearly
erroneous.

Father first challenges the district cour t’s findings on the second factor, which
includes the age, developmental stage, need s of the child, and th e likely impact the
relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emo tional development,
taking into consideration sp ecial needs of the child. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175,
subd. 3(b)(2). Specifically, fath er argues that the district court’s findings regarding the
impact that the relocation w ill have on A.L.D.’s educational devel opment were clearly
erroneous. He contends that the district court clearly erred by finding that D’Vorre is more
diverse than A.L.D.’s school in Duluth. He argues that no evidence was introduced that
showed that D’Vorre is superior to A.L.D.’s school in Duluth, a nd that he presented
evidence that Minnesota schools are superior to Nevada schools. He also maintains that
the district court erroneously adopted mother’s testimony that the student-to-teacher ratio
at D’Vorre was 18:1.
The district court did not, however, make th e findings that father contests. In its
order, the district court discussed the evidence presented by both par ties about schools in
Minnesota and Nevada but did not actually find one school to be superior to the other. It
noted that mother had visited D’Vorre , provided evidence about the school’s
student-to-teacher ratio, and testified that she believed that D’Vo rre is more diverse
than the child’s school in Duluth. But the di strict court did not find that D’Vorre is in
fact more diverse than A.L.D.’s school in Duluth. Nor did the district court adopt mother’s
evidence regarding the student-to-teacher ratio. It simply recognized that mother presented

8
the evidence. With regard to father’s evidence, the district court noted that father presented
statistical evidence comparing Minnesota scho ols to Nevada schools but found that the
evidence offered was unpersuasive because the statistics were outdated. It is apparent from
its order that the district court considered th e evidence presented by the parties regarding
the impact on A.L.D.’s educational development from the move and, in effect, concluded
that the impact would be neutral.
In addition to challenging the district court’s findings regarding A.L.D.’s
educational development, father also argues that the district court ignored how the
relocation would likely affect A.L.D.’s emo tional development. Specifically, he argues
that, although the parenting-time schedule that the district court adopted provided him with
more total parenting-time days than the prior order, the relocation would have a significant
negative impact on his relati onship with A.L.D. because he would have less frequent
contact with A.L.D. We are not persuaded that the district court failed to consider this
aspect of A.L.D.’s emotional development. While the district court did not make explicit
findings about the impact the move would ha ve on A.L.D.’s emotional development, the
district court addressed the argument father now makes when it found that father would be
able to maintain his relationship with his daughter through: (1) increased overall parenting
time, (2) a significant amount of continuous parenting time over the summer, and (3) the
ability to communicate with the minor child by telephone during evening hours when the
child is in Nevada. We discern no clear erro rs in the district court’s findings on this
best-interests factor.

9
B. The district court’s findings on the third factor do not require reversal.

Father next challenges the district court’s findings regarding the third factor, which
considers the feasibility of pr eserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent
and the child through suitable parenting-time arrangements, considering the logistics and
financial circumstances of the parties. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3(b)(3). Father
argues that the district court clearly erred wh en it found that father would have parenting
time each month. Under the new schedule, the district court awarded father parenting time
for most school holidays during the academic year and extended parenting time during the
summer. But the Thanksgiving and Christ mas schedule—the November and December
holidays—rotates between the parties each year, so that during a given year one parent has
parenting time over Thanksgiving and the other has parenting time over Christmas. Thus,
in the years that father has parenting time ov er Thanksgiving, he will not have parenting
time in December. And in the years that father has parenting time over Christmas, he will
not have parenting time in November. In its order, however, the district court indicated
that the new parenting-time schedule provide d father with parenting time during “the
majority of the summer and each month during the academic year during extended
weekends for school holidays.” (Emphasis added). For the reasons explained above, we
conclude that the district court’s statement that father would have parenting time “each
month during the academic year” is inconsistent with th e parenting-time schedule that it
articulated later in its order.
We conclude, however, that the error was harmless. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (“[N]o
error or defect in any ruling or order in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of

10
the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating,
modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action
appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. Th e court at every stage of the
proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties.”). Though the district court overlooked this issue when it
stated that father would have parenting time ea ch month, the district court’s order clearly
demonstrates its determination that the increa sed parenting time afforded to father under
the new schedule, and father’s ability to communicate with A.L. D. over the phone,
bolstered the feasibility of preserving fath er’s relationship with A.L.D. despite the
relocation.
Father further argues that the district court’s findings on this factor—which focuses
on preservation of the child’s relationship with the nonrelocating parent—were erroneous
because the district court was “dismissive” about how the paren ting-time schedule might
affect A.L.D.’s relationship with him. As discussed above, he maintains that the schedule
reduces the frequency of his parenting time with A.L.D. He asserts that the district court’s
reasoning on this factor “defies all logic, common sense, or guidance from any expert or
even the courts.” While we understand fathe r’s concern regarding his ability to maintain
his relationship with A.L.D. with less frequen t parenting-time, we do not agree that the
district court’s conclusion requires reversal.4 And as a reviewing court, we do not reweigh

4 In asserting that the district court’s reasoning on this factor defies common sense, father
relies in part on a pamphlet concerning parenting-time decisions that was not introduced to
the district court. An appellate court generally does not review evidence not presented to
the district court. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the trial

11
the evidence. Sefkow v. Sefkow , 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). The district court
adequately explained why it determined that it was feasible to preserve father’s relationship
with A.L.D. based on the evid ence in the record. Conseque ntly, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in its analysis of how the relocation, and the
parenting-time schedule, would affect father’s relationship with A.L.D.5
C. The district court’s findings of fact on the sixth factor are not clearly
erroneous.

Father also contends that the district court’s findings on the sixth factor are clearly
erroneous. The sixth factor examines whether the relocation of the child will enhance the
general quality of the life for both the custodial parent seeking the relocation and the child.
See Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3(b)(6). The di strict court concluded that this factor
favored relocation, finding that mother’s j ob in Nevada would allow her to work fewer

court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record
on appeal in all cases.”); Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582- 83 (Minn. 1988) (“An
appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may
not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.”). We do not consider
the pamphlet in our review of the district court’s order.
5 We also note that Anh Phuong Le v. Holter, 838 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. App. 2013), review
denied (Minn. Dec. 31, 2013), cited by father in his brief, is unpersuasive. Father cites Anh
Phuong Le to support his argument that the district court abused its discretion in granting
mother’s motion because, despite additional parenting time, the relocation to Nevada will
have a significant negative impact on his relationship with A.L.D. But in Anh Phuong Le,
we affirmed the district court’s order denying relocation where the district court concluded
that relocating children to a nother state “would have a si gnificant negative effect on the
children’s relationship with [the father] and held that [the mother] had failed to sustain her
burden of proof for removal.” 838 N.W.2d at 800. The district court here did not find that
relocation would have a signifi cant negative effect on fathe r’s relationship with A.L.D.,
and adequately explained why it was feasible to preserve the relationship despite the
relocation.

12
hours while earning a higher income. The district court noted that mother’s work schedule
in Nevada would allow her to spend more time with A.L.D.
Father argues that the district court clearly erred in its analysis of this factor because
it overstated the financial benefits that mo ther gained from her new job in Nevada.
Specifically, father argues that the district court’s findings on this factor understate
mother’s income in Minnesota, and that mother does not gain a significant financial benefit
from her new job. Again, we are not persuaded.
The district court’s findings about mother’s income are not clearly erroneous. The
district court found that mother’s tax returns showed her taxable income amounts for 2016,
2017, and 2018—all of which were less than $70,000. The tax re turns that mother
submitted at the hearing support the district court’s findings. The district court also found
that mother’s job in Nevada offered her a base salary of approximately $80,000 per year to
work only 36 hours per week. Mother’s testimony supports this finding. Thus, the record
supports the district court’s finding that mother’s new job allowed her to work fewer hours
while earning a higher income. Moreover, as mother argues in her brief and father does
not contest, mother earns significant benefits at her new job and has a lower cost of living
in Nevada. Viewed as a whole, we discern no clear error in the district court’s findings on
this factor.
Overall, the district court’s order makes it cl ear that it determined that most of the
best-interests factors were relatively neutral, but that the improved quality of life that would
accompany the move to Nevada would benefit A.L.D. In re aching this conclusion, the
district court emphasized that the mother’s job opportunity in Nevada, along with the

13
proposed parenting-time schedule, would maximize A.L.D.’s time with both parents. We
cannot conclude from this record that the district court abused its discretion by finding that
it was in A.L.D.’s best interests to relocate with mother to Nevada.
D. Mother was not required to seek comparable in-state employment.
Finally, father argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting mother’s
motion to relocate because mother did not seek similar job opportunities in the Twin Cities,
where she might have found another job with a salary comparable to the Nevada job.
Father concedes that the st atute does not require a parent seeking relocation to seek
employment in Minnesota, and cites no legal authority that establishes such a requirement.
Father argues, however, that “it is implicit fo r an individual considering relocation to at
least consider similar in-state opportunities w ithout wholly disregarding comparable said
prospects.” Father thus asks us to read into the statute an implicit requirement not present
in the statute’s text. But when interpreting a statute, we cannot disregard the letter of the
law “under the pretext of pursu ing the spirit.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018). Because the
law does not require a parent to seek in-sta te employment opportunities before seeking to
relocate with a child to another state, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in granting mother’s motion to relocate to Nevada on this basis.
In sum, we conclude that the district c ourt made no clearly erroneous findings that
would require reversal and did not abuse its discretion in granting mother’s motion to
relocate with A.L.D. to Nevada.
Affirmed.