April Ann Rowe, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1505

April Ann Rowe,
Appellant,

vs.

Michael Paul Osborn,
Respondent.

Filed August 9, 2021
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Mower County District Court
File No. 50-FA-18-1107

April Ann Rowe, Albert Lea, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Danielle DiFiore, Anderson Law Firm, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presidi ng Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Worke,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
In this custody dispute, a ppellant-mother argues that the district court (1) failed to
consider certain evidence; (2) failed to al low her to fully cro ss-examine a witness;
(3) admitted impermissible hearsay; and (4) was biased against her. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant-mother April Ann Rowe and re spondent-father Mich ael Paul Osborn
were in a romantic relationshi p for several years. They ended their relationship while
mother was pregnant. Mother gave birth to their son in June 2017.
In May 2018, mother initiate d an action to establish parentage and child support. A
child support magistrate issued an order awarding mother temporary custody, requiring
father to pay child support, and referring disputed issues, including permanent physical and
legal custody, to the district court.
In August 2019, father moved for temporary joint le gal custody, a temporary
parenting-time schedule, and the parties’ partic ipation with a custody evaluator (CE). In
his affidavit, father described how mother refused his many attempts to see the child. The
district court granted father’s request fo r parenting time and ordered the parties to
participate in a custody evaluation; father was responsible for 80% of the cost, and mother
was responsible for 20% of the cost.
Not long after, father moved for, among other things, temporary joint legal custody,
additional parenting time, and an order prohibiting mother’s boyfriend from being present
during exchanges. Father claimed that mother continued to refuse him parenting time and
that mother’s boyfriend harasse d him and the staff at the Se ibel Center where exchanges
occurred. The district court granted these requests.
In February 2020, the district court held a trial on the disputed issues. The CE
testified as an expert witness. She testified that she observed father in his home with the
child. She stated that the child was very comfortable and received a lot of attention. She
3
observed the child leading the play, “laugh ing, smiling,” and “lots of affection and
interaction.” The CE testified that father talked to the child about mother in a positive way
and commented to the CE that mother must be doing a good job with the child because he
is “an exceptional little boy.”
In contrast, the CE testified that mothe r’s home environment di d not have a lot of
laughter or affection. The CE stated that the child was “more hesitant with
[mother] . . . wanting to make sure he did things right.” Additionally, the CE testified that
mother spoke only negatively about father. The CE testified that she was “very concerned
about [the child’s] emotional we ll-being” due to “him being e xposed to negativity.” The
CE also had concerns about mother’s boyfriend, stating that the boyfriend’s involvement
in the child’s life would affect the child’s ability to have a healthy relationship with father.
The CE further testified that she revi ewed information from the Seibel Center
describing the staff’s many concerns and incidents involving mo ther and mother’s
boyfriend using “[f]oul language in front of the children,” making accusations about an
unfounded injury, and ca lling the police. Based on this in formation, the CE stated that
mother interfered with father’s parenting time, and she did not believe that mother would
follow through with court-ordered parenting time. The CE recommended that it was in the
child’s best interests that father have sole physical and sole legal custody. She stated that
she had more confidence in father sharing information with moth er and supporting the
child’s relationship with mother.
Mother’s attorney cross-exam ined the CE as depicted in 50 pages of the transcript.
As the day concluded, mother’s attorney raised the issue of the CE returning to continue
4
testifying. The district court stated that mother failed to pay her court-ordered percentage
of the CE’s fees, and that in order for the CE to return, “financial arrangements [had] to be
made.” Mother’s attorney stated that she would discuss with mother whether to bring the
CE back for additional cross-examination. When the second day of trial convened, the CE
appeared. Mother’s attorney stated that mother did not pay the CE and “wasn’t anticipating
continuing any cross on [the CE].” The district court excused the CE.
After considering all of the evidence, in cluding testimony from mother, father, the
CE, and the staff at the Seibel Center, the district court filed an order awarding father sole
legal and sole physical custody of the child. The district court found that it had “significant
concerns about the child’s emotional needs and development if the [c]hild remains in
mother’s custody.” The district court found that the evidence showed that, while exchanges
with father went smoothly, the child “experienced anxiety and fear” during exchanges with
mother. The district court also found that mother’s boyfriend had a “controlling demeanor”
that “contributed to the [c]hild’s negative emotional experiences during exchanges.”
Because mother was still in a relationship w ith her boyfriend, the district court had
“concerns about the pote ntial for [mother’s boyfriend] to negatively affect the [c]hild’s
relationship with his father.”
The district court also found that the st aff at the Seibel Center testified about
mother’s “demanding, intimidating, and rigid demeanor.” The district court stated:
The court finds that the child’s emotional well-being
suffered significantly as a direct result of [m]other’s behavior
during these exchanges. The extreme level of conflict that
[m]other created during exchan ges borders on the point of
emotional abuse for the [c]hild. It is particularly concerning to
5
the court that she seems to lack awareness of how her behavior
negatively affects those ar ound her, including—most
importantly—her child.

The district court stated th at it carefully evaluated all relevant best-interests factors
and found that “given the acri monious nature of the parties’ relationship,” joint legal and
physical custody would be “harmful to the best interests of the [c]hild.” The district court
concluded, “The best interests of the [c]hild are best served by an award of both legal and
physical custody to [f]ather.” Mother was awarded reasonable parenting time.
Mother moved for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by excluding her
boyfriend’s testimony and precluding her from cross-examining the CE. The district court
denied mother’s motion. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Mother raises several issues on appeal, but she failed to raise all but one in district
court. In her motion for a new trial, mother argued that the district court should have
permitted her to cross-examine th e CE. Therefore, with the ex ception of this one claim,
mother’s claims raised for the first time on appeal are forfeited.
1 See Alpha Real Estate
Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn. , 664 N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2003)
(holding that in absence of a motion for a ne w trial, our scope of review is limited to
substantive legal issues properly raised to and considered by the district court).

1 These claims include, the district court (1) did not sufficiently weigh evidence of domestic
abuse, (2) failed to consider evidence of witness tampering, (3 ) allowed inadmissible
hearsay, and (4) was biased against her.

6
Cross-examination of expert witness
The only issue appropriately before us is whether the di strict court failed to allow
mother to complete her cross- examination of the CE. The di strict court has authority as
gatekeeper for admitting evidence, and its evidentiary rulings will not be reversed unless
they are based on an erroneous view of the law or an abuse of discretion. Gross v. Victoria
Station Farms, Inc., 578 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Minn. 1998).
Mother’s attorney cross-examin ed the CE, depicted in 50 pages of the transcript.
The district court found in its order denying mother’s request for a new trial that mother
cross-examined the CE from 3:11 – 4:30 p.m. (79 minutes). The district court stated that
the CE would be required to return to the next trial date subject to mother paying her 20%
portion of the CE’s fee. Mother did not pay. The district court ruled that because the CE
was an expert witness, she could not be co mpelled to testify without payment. And
although the CE appeared on the second day of trial, mother’s attorney stated that she was
not expecting the CE to be there or to testify. Thus, despite mother’s assertion, her attorney
cross-examined the CE for over an hour. Mo ther then failed to pay her court-ordered
expense and stated that she had not planned to continue cross-examination of the CE. The
district court properly exercised its discretion in its authority over the admission of expert
testimony.
Affirmed.