In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Nieber, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0616

In re the Marriage of:
Christopher John Nieber, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Rebekah Kali Nieber, n/k/a Beka Kali,
Appellant.

Filed April 19, 2021
Reversed and remanded
Klaphake, Judge*
Washington County District Court
File No. 82-FA-18-3800

Christopher Nieber, Stillwater, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Beka Kali, Taylors Falls, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Pres iding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.

*Retired judge of the Minnesot a Court of Appeals, servin g by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant-mother Rebekah Kali Nieber, n/ k/a Beka Kali, challenges the district
court’s decision to grant respondent-father Christopher John Nieber’s motion and direction
that the parties’ two minor children receive vaccinations as recommended by health-care
providers. Mother argues, am ong other things, that the district court erred by failing to
consider the best interests of the children factors and by relying on its experience as a parent
to make its decision. Because we agree that the district court should have considered the
statutory factors relevant to the best interest s of the children and th at the district court
improperly relied on its experience as a parent, we reverse and remand. In light of that
conclusion, we need not consider mother’s alternative arguments.
DECISION
Mother argues that the district court, in making the decision to grant father’s motion
and in directing that the children receive vacc inations, failed to consider and discuss the
statutory best-interests factors and based its decision on personal experience as a parent.
A district court has broad discretion when deciding matters of custody. Hansen v. Todnem,
908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 2018). Our appellate review “is limited to whether the district
court abused its discretion by making find ings unsupported by the evidence or by
improperly applying the law.” Id.
Mother and father were married in May 2 006 and divorced in May 2019. The parties
have two minor children together. At the time of dissolution, the parties negotiated a
parenting agreement that was incorporated into the dissolution judgment and decree. The

3
stipulated judgment awarded mother sole phys ical custody and both parties joint legal
custody. “Joint legal custody” means that both parents have equal rights and
responsibilities, including the right to participate in major decisions determining the child’s
upbringing, education, health care, and religi ous training. Minn. St at. § 518.003, subd.
3(b) (2020). Under the stipulated custody provisions of the judgment, mother was required
to schedule a vaccination consultation with a holistic medical doctor because the parties
disagreed about whether to vaccinate the children. The agreement states:
Both parents agree to participat e in a consultation with this
provider to weigh the benefits/risks of immunizing the children
and ongoing wellness care. Neither party will take any
unilateral medical decision or action, without the agreement of
the other party. If the parties cannot agree, then the Court will
determine the legal dispute based on the best interest of the
children.

In December 2019, father moved for an order directing that the children receive
vaccinations. Since the disso lution in May 2019, the children had not seen a holistic
medical doctor for a vaccination consultation. Father attended a consultation with a non-
holistic medical doctor without the childre n and received a copy of a recommended
immunization schedule. He submitted the schedule with his motion.
Father wants the children to be vaccinated. Mother do es not. Where joint legal
custodians disagree on specific is sues of custodial care, the court “shall consider the best
interests” of the children. Novak v. Novak , 446 N.W.2d 422, 424 (Minn. App. 1989),
review denied (Minn. Dec. 1, 1989); see also Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3(a)(3) (2020).
The law makes no distinction between general determinations of custody and resolution of
specific issues of custodial care. Novak, 446 N.W.2d at 424. The district court determined

4
that because the parties did not agree on the issue of vaccinations, it would determine the
dispute based upon the best interests of the children. The parties also agreed in the
parenting agreement that if they could not agree, “the Court will determine the legal dispute
based on the best interest of the children.” Neither party disp utes that the district court
should make its decision based on the best interests of the children.
“In evaluating the best interests of the ch ild[ren] . . . the court must consider and
evaluate all relevant factors.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2020) . The district court
held a hearing and reviewed the recommended immunization schedule. In its written order,
the district court stated:
The Court as a parent is familiar with vaccination of
children concerning the many dead ly childhood diseases that
can be prevented through vaccines. . . .

This Court in its experience as a parent who has all three
of our children vaccinated as ch ildren while attending school
found the process helpful and protective and therefore finds,
and concludes after reviewing the vaccination information
[father] received from [the non-holistic doctor], that it is in the
children’s best interests to be vaccinated against these
potentially deadly childhood diseases. The Court believes the
benefits of getting the childre n vaccinated far outweighs any
potential risks of getting the vaccines. The parties must
cooperate and follow the reco mmendations of the children’s
health care providers in moving forward on the immunizations.

Mother argues that the district court should have considered and discussed the
statutory best-interests factors such as the children’s spiritual and religious beliefs and the
reasonable preferences of the children. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, su bd. 1(a). She also
argues that the district court should not have based its decision on its experience as a parent.

5
Father argues that the district court made the correct decision based on the evidence before
it and that having the children vaccinated is in their best interests.
Here, the district court referred to the be st interests of the children as being the
standard used for its findings and ultimate determination. When making marriage-
dissolution determinations, a district cour t must identify both its decision and the
underlying reasons for that decision. See Hagen v. Schirmers, 783 N.W.2d 212, 217 (Minn.
App. 2010) (citing Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52, 53 (Minn. 1989 )). It is essential that a
district court judge deciding family court matters is neutral in deed and in appearance, and
judges “should take measures to assure that litigants have no cause to think their case is
not being fairly judged.” McClelland v. McClelland, 359 N.W.2d 7, 11 (Minn. 1984)
(quotation omitted). The district court did not make findings of fact based on the relevant
best-interests factors and did not explain how those factors led to its conclusion and
ultimate determination. The district court did not base its decision solely on the evidence
before it, but stated that it based its decision on “its experience as a parent who has all three
of our children vaccinated [a nd] found the process helpful and protective.” The written
order does not include findings related to the statutory best-interests factors. We
acknowledge that a district court’s persona l experience may inform their view of a
situation. But those persona l experiences may not replace the required statutory best-
interests analysis.
Because the district court did not make findings of fact ba sed on the relevant
statutory best-interests factors, and because it based its decision solely on its experience as
a parent, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion. A district court’s failure

6
to make detailed findings on relevant stat utory factors generally requires a remand. See
Rogge v. Rogge, 509 N.W.2d 163, 166 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Jan. 28,
1994). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings and consideration of the
relevant statutory best-interest factors, allowing the parties to introduce evidence relevant
to those factors. In light of that conclusion, we need not consider mother’s alternative
arguments.
Reversed and remanded.