County of Clay, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1029

County of Clay,
Respondent,

H. N. K.,
Appellant,

vs.

J. D. F.,
Respondent.

Filed July 6, 2021
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Clay County District Court
File No. 14-FA-19-4774

Brian J. Melton, Clay County Attorney, Kathleen M. Stock, Assistant County Attorney,
Moorhead, Minnesota (for respondent county)

H. N. K., Dilworth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

J. D. F., Fargo, North Dakota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
In this child-custody dispute, appellant-mother argues t hat the district court abused
its discretion by awarding respondent-father sole physical and sole legal custody of the

2
minor children. Mother also argues that the district court failed to provide jud icial
transparency. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-mother H.N.K. and respondent-father J.D.F. are the natural parents of
three minor children born between 2017 and 2019 . Father and mother separated in 2019.
Following their separation, the children lived with mother. Father did not have court -
ordered parenting time with the children and, since 2019, has only been allowed to spend
time with the children at mother’s sole discretion. Mother did not allow father to visit the
children outside her home.
In 2019, mother applied for public assistance through the Minnesota Fam ily
Investment Program. Mother assigned her rights to basic child support and to medical
support to the state. In November 2019, respondent-county sought to adjudicate paternity
and establish child support. The c hild support magistrate issued findings o f fact,
conclusions of law, order establishing paternity and temporary child support, and order of
referral to district court. The child support magistrate confirmed that father was the
biological father of the children. But t he parents could not agree a bout custody and
parenting time, and these matters were referred to the district court for trial.1
The district court held a court trial in March 2020, and heard testimony from father,
mother, a county child support officer, and two of mother’s witnesses. The district court
filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment and decree

1 The child support magistrate also considered issues related to the name of the oldest child
and ongoing child support. Mother does not challenge these issues on appeal.

3
in June 2020. The district court determined that it was in the best interests of the children
to award father sole physical and sole legal custody of the children. The district court
awarded reasonable, unsupervised parenting time to mother. Mother appeals. 2
DECISION
I. Custody Determination
A. Legal Standard
Mother seeks review of the district court’s June 3, 2020 judgment related to physical
and legal custody of the children. Our review of the district court’ s custody decision is
“limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by mak ing findin gs
unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Zander v. Zander, 720
N.W.2d 360, 365 -66 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Nov. 14, 2006). We will
sustain a district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Pikula v. Pikula,
374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985). “Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an
appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). We defer
to a district court’s credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow , 427 N.W.2d 203, 210
(Minn. 1988).

2 Father did not file a responsive brief or otherwise oppose the appeal. The county
submitted a letter stating that it took no position on custody or parenting-time issues. We
ordered the appeal to proceed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03, which provides that if
a respondent fails to file a brief, we will decide the case on the merits.

4
B. Best-Interests Factors
Mother argues that the record does not support the d istrict court’s best -interests
findings. In considering a petition for parenting time , a district court “shall consider and
evaluate all relevant factors in section 518.17, subdivision 1, to determine the best interests
of the child.” Minn. Stat. § 257.025(a) ( 2020). Minnesota Statutes s ection 518.17
articulates twelve factors to consider in evaluating the best interests of a child:
(1) a child’s physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and other
needs, and the effect of the proposed arrangements on the
child’s needs and development;
(2) any sp ecial medical, mental health, or educational needs
that the child may have that may require special parenting
arrangements or access to recommended services;
(3) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems
the child to be of sufficient ability, age, and maturity to express
an independent, reliable preference;
(4) whether domestic abuse . . . has occurred in the parents’ or
either parent’s household or relationship; the nature and
context of the domestic abuse; and the implications of the
domestic abuse for parenting and for the child’s safety, well -
being, and developmental needs;
(5) any physical, mental, or chemical health issue of a parent
that affects the child’s safety or developmental needs;
(6) the history and nature of each parent’s par ticipation in
providing care for the child;
(7) the willingness and ability of each parent to provide
ongoing care for the child; to meet the child’s ongoing
developmental, emotional, spiritual, and cultural needs; and to
maintain consistency and follow through with parenting time;
(8) the effect on the child’s well -being and development of
changes to home, school, and community;

5
(9) the effect of the proposed arrangements on the ongoing
relationships between the child and each parent, siblings, and
other significant persons in the child’s life;
(10) the benefit to the child in maximizing parenting time with
both parents and the detriment to the child in limiting parenting
time with either parent;
(11) except in cases in which domestic abuse . . . has occurred,
the disposition of each parent to support the child’s relationship
with the other parent and to encourage and permit frequent and
continuing contact between the child and the other parent; and
(12) the willingness and ability of parents to cooperate in the
rearing of their child; to maximize sharing information and
minimize exposure of the child to parental conflict; and to
utilize methods for resolving disputes regarding any major
decision concerning the life of the child.
Id., subd. 1(a)(1)-(12) (2020). The district court must make detailed findings on each factor
based on the evidence presented and must “explain how each factor led to its conclusio ns
and to the determination of custody and parenting time.” Id., subd. 1(b)(1) (2020).
Here, the district court analyzed each statutory factor and made detailed findin gs
addressing each factor. The district court found that six factors were neutral, five factors
favored father, and one factor was inapplicable.
1. Neutral Factors
The district court determined that the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
factors were neutral. The district court found that: (1) the children had no known special
needs; (2) the children were too young to express a preference; (3) there was no evidence
of physical, mental, or chemical health issues; (4) both parents participated in caring for
the children; (5) both parents were willing to provide ongoing care; and (6) the children

6
would not be affected by changes to their home, school, or community. Mother does not
challenge these findings.
2. Factors Favoring Father
Mother mainly challenges the district court’s findings in factors one and four,
related to domestic abuse , which the district court found favored father. The first factor
requires the district court to consider a child’s physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and
other needs. The district court found that there was “ample evidence” that the children
were exposed to “physical risk as a result o f [mother’s] violent and assaultive acts,” which
threatened both their physical and emotional health. The district court found that this factor
favored father.
The district court also found that the fourth factor favored father. This factor
requires the district court to assess whether domestic abuse “occurred in the parents’ or
either parent’s household or relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4). The district
court must give special focus to “the nature and context of the domestic abuse and the
implications of the domestic abuse for parenting and for the child’s safety, well-being, and
developmental needs.” Id. The district court found that there was “extensive testimo ny”
that mother committed acts of domestic abuse against father. The dis trict court found that
mother “engaged in acts of domestic abuse ,” which “compromised the children’s safety.”
The record support s these findings. Father described several specific incidents, such as
mother punching father in the head and face while he wa s driving with a child in the
backseat; spitting, and swearing at father in front of the children ; smashing multip le
televisions; and smashing a framed picture over father’s head when he was sleeping. Father

7
reported mother’s conduct to the police on at least two occasions. The district court made
detailed findings and explained how these factors supported its conclusions. The record
supports the district court’s findings about the first and fourth factors and so those findin gs
are not clearly erroneous.
Mother also challenges the district court’s findings about the ninth factor , which
considers the effect of the proposed arrangements on the ongoing relationships between
the child and each parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child’s li fe. Minn.
Stat. § 518.17(a)(9). The district court found that mother controlled “how and when
parenting time will be exercised” and only “minimally facilitated the relationship between
[father] and the children.” Mother challenges this finding because the district court
awarded father custody “without [him] asking for it.” The record does not support this
claim. Father testified that he wanted to spend more time with the children and provide
“the best environment for them.” Father also testified that he wanted the children to spend
more time with his own family. Father testified that he has asked mother to allow him to
have the children stay with him overnight at his house, but that mother “doesn’t allow” it.
The record supports the district court’s findings related to this factor.
Mother does not challenge the district court’s findings for the tenth and twelfth
factors. The district court found that the tenth factor favored father because it would be
beneficial for the children to “reduc[e] the time the children spend in the care of [mother],
and increas[e] time spent with [father].” And the district court found that the twelfth factor
favored father because mother had “demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise in any
significant fashion” with fat her.

8
3. Inapplicable Factor
The district court noted that the eleventh factor does not apply when domestic abuse
has occurred.
C. The Record Supports the Findings
The district court provided detailed findings supporting each of the twelve best-
interests factors. Based on its analysis of the statutory factors, the district court determined
that it was in the best interests of the children to award sole physical and sole legal custody
to father. The district court heard testimony from father, mother, and several witnesses,
and made credibility determinations based on the testimony presented. We defer to these
credibility determinations. See Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 210 (deferring to district court’s
ability to observe parties’ behavior and noting that cred ibility determinations are integral
to balancing best-interests factors).
While the record may have supported alternate findings —as mother suggests— the
district cour t’s factual findings are supported by the record and reflect a careful
examination of the evidence presented. Vangsness v. Vangsness , 607 N. W.2d 468, 477
(Minn. App. 2000) (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the
trial court does not show that the [trial] court’s findings are defective.”); see also Luthen v.
Luthen, 596 N.W.2d 278, 283 (Minn. App. 1999) ( recognizing that complainant has duty
to show that district court erred in family-law appeal).
In sum, we conclude that the best-interests findings are supported by the record, and
the district court’s findings support its conclusions of law. We therefore affirm the district
court’s decision to grant father sole legal and sole physical custody of the children.

9
II. Judicial Transparency
Mother argues that the judicial process was not transparent. But mother does not
provide relevant legal authority to support this claim. We recognize that m other
represented herself at trial and on appeal. But this court has “repeatedly emphasized that
pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with
court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001).
Generally, even a pro se litigant forfeits claims unsupported by relevant legal authority or
legal argument. See State v. Krosch , 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (refusing to
consider pro se brief that contained “no argument or citation to legal authority”). Because
mother failed to support her judicial-transparency claim, we consider it forfeited.
Affirmed.