In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla, petitioner, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1599

In re the Marriage of: Stacy Ann Rakow, f/k/a Przybilla, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Ryan Frank Przybilla,
Respondent.

Filed August 23, 2021
Reversed and remanded
Bryan, Judge

Morrison County District Court
File No. 49-FA-18-1064

Edward R. Shaw, Brainerd, Minnesota (for appellant)

Kristi D. Stanislawski, Jova novich, Dege & Athmann, PA , St. Cloud, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Re illy, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this parenting time dispute, appellant challenges the district court’s decision to
adopt an equal parenting time schedule. We c onclude that because the district court did
not make sufficient findings regarding the statutory best interests factors, we are unable to

2
review the permanent parenting time schedule a dopted by the district court. We reverse
the district court decision and remand for further findings.
FACTS
Appellant-mother Stacy Rako w and respondent-father Ry an Przybilla married in
2008 and have five joint minor children. On July 23, 2018, mother petitioned for
dissolution of marriage. On October 22, 2 018, the district court issued a temporary
parenting time order based on the parties’ agreement. The temporary parenting time order
imposed a 5-2-2-5 schedule, allo tting each parent seven out of every 14 overnights. On
February 19, 2019, the district court disso lved the marriage, but litigation continued
regarding permanent custody and parenting ti me. The parties proceeded with a custody
evaluation, and on November 5, 2019, the cu stody evaluator submitted a report,
recommending joint legal custody and joint p hysical custody. The evaluator also
recommended a regular parenting time schedule in which father exercised five out of every
14 overnights during the academ ic year and six out of ev ery 14 overnights during the
summer. Mother would exercise the remaining overnights.
On November 26, 2019, the State of Minnesota charged father with fleeing a peace
officer in a motor vehicle and by other means. The complaint alleged that father drove in
excess of 35 miles per hour over the speed limit while the oldest minor was in the car, and
that the officer detected a st rong odor of alcohol coming from a container in the vehicle.
In response, the parties stipulated to adding several conditions to the temporary parenting
time order. Father agreed that he would refrain from consuming alcohol during his
parenting time, install an ignition-interlock system in his vehicle, only transport the

3
children in the vehicle that ha s the ignition-interlock system, and submit to a urine test if
mother suspected that father was not compliant with these conditions. On January 6, 2020,
the district court adopted the stipulation, incorporating it as part of the temporary parenting
time order. The custody evaluator subse quently submitted a supplemental report
addressing the November 23, 2019 incident, but did not chan ge the previous custody and
parenting time recommendations.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on July 9, 2020, regarding permanent
custody and parenting time. Mother requested that the district court adopt the evaluator’s
recommended school-year schedule, but argued that the district court should order the
parties to follow that schedule throughout the entire year (five out of every 14 overnights
allotted to father and nine to mother). In addition, mother requested that the district court
permit her to claim tax exemptions for all of the parties’ minor children for tax year 2019.
Father disagreed with the evaluator and mother, reques ting an equal-parenting time
schedule similar to the temporary order. Father also opposed mother’s requested
dependency exemptions for tax year 2019.
On October 16, 2020, after th e evidentiary hearing, but before the district court
issued its decision, mother filed an ex parte motion, requesting that the district court grant
the following relief: (1) prohibit father from tr ansporting the children in a motor vehicle;
(2) restrict father’s parenti ng time to supervised visits ev ery other weekend; (3) require
father to undergo a chemical depende ncy assessment and follow any resulting
recommendations; (4) require father to pay moth er’s attorney fees a nd court costs; and
(5) any additional relief deemed appropriate.

4
On October 21, 2020, the di strict court issued its order establishing permanent
custody and parenting time (the 2020 Order). In the 2020 Order, the district court found
that nothing “would suggest that either party is neglecting the education of the children in
any way,” “[b]oth parties and th e Custody Evaluator testified that the minor children, for
the most part, do well in school,” and the “Custody Evaluator did not note any concerns of
the adequacy of the food at [mother’s] residence.” The district court addressed the incident
that resulted in criminal charges against fath er, concluding that father “does have issues
involving alcohol that are unaddressed and concerning as they relate to the best interest of
the children involved in this case.” Despite this concern, the district court found that “there
has not been any endangerment alleged nor has there been any allegations of chronic
failure, as it relates to comp lying with the prior Parenting Time Order, which would
warrant a modification.”
In its conclusions of law, the district court generally conclu ded that an equal
parenting time schedule was in the children’s best interests: “it is in the best interests of the
children that the previous order regarding pare nting time remain in its entirety,” and that
the “[m]odification proposed by [mother] would not serve the best interests of the parties’
minor children.” In spite of this general stat ement, however, the district court also noted
the parenting time modification standard set fo rth in Minnesota Statutes section 518.175,
subdivision 5(c) (2020), applied in this instance. The district court concluded that it “may
not restrict parenting time unless it finds that: (1) parenting time is likely to endanger the
child’s physical or emotional health or im pair the child’s emotio nal development; or
(2) the parent has chronically and unreason ably failed to comply with court ordered

5
parenting time.” The district court then proceeded to briefly analyze parenting time
according to the modification st andard. Pursuant to this standard, the district court
determined that mother had not established endangerment. In the absence of this showing,
the district court reasoned that the temporary parenting time order must remain. In the first
paragraph of its order, the district court ru led that “[mother’s] re quest to change the
parenting time schedule as requested is DENIED.” The district court further ordered that
“the current temporary parenting time order remains now as a Permanent Order with the
same restrictions as previously ordered and set.” The district court reiterated the equal
5-2-2-5 schedule previously imposed. The district court also adopted all “additional
recommendations listed in [the custody evaluator’s report], which are not inconsistent with
this Order . . . in their entir ety.” The 2020 Order did not mention or expressly rule on
mother’s posttrial October 16, 2020 motions.
On October 30, 2020, nine days after th e 2020 Order, mother submitted additional
motions and an additional affidavit. The October 30, 2020 motions repeated verbatim the
five motions brought on October 16, 2020. The October 30, 2020 motions also included
five additional motions requesting that the district court grant the following relief: (1) hold
father in contempt for failing to follow the temporary parenting time schedule and the
permanent parenting time schedule adopted in the 2020 Order; (2) require exchanges to
occur at a particular location in Pierz, Mi nnesota; (3) require non -school exchanges to
occur at 6:00 p.m.; (4) adopt a revised ho liday parenting time schedule; and (5) allow
mother to play a video of father transporting the children in a vehicle that was not equipped
with an ignition interlock device at a hearing regarding the motions. Following a hearing

6
regarding these motions, the district court or ally denied all ten of mother’s motions.
Mother appeals the permanent parenting time schedule.1
DECISION
Mother argues that the district court made insufficient findings regarding the
requisite best interests factors in the 2020 Order. We agree, reverse the district court’s
permanent parenting time decision, and remand for further findings.
Minnesota Statutes section 518.17, subdivision 1 (2020), governs the establishment
of permanent parenting time schedules. Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn.
2018). “In considering the child’s best inte rests, a district court must ‘consider and
evaluate all relevant factors,’ includi ng 12 factors set forth by statute.” Thornton v.
Bosquez, 933 N.W.2d 781, 789 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Minn. Stat . § 518.17, subd. 1(a)).
“The court must provide ‘deta iled findings’ on each of the stat utory best interests factors
and explain how each ‘led to its conclusion s and to the determination of custody and
parenting time.’” Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(1)). “The district court has
broad discretion in dete rmining parenting time issues and will not be reversed absent an
abuse of that discretion.” Shearer v. Shearer , 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn. App. 2017)
(quotation omitted).

1 Mother also asserts error in the district court’s denial of the posttrial motions and her
request regarding the dependency exemptions in tax year 2019. Because mother cites no
authority supporting these arguments, we decline to address them. Schoepke v. Alexander
Smith & Sons Carpet Co. , 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (“An assignment of error
based on mere assertion and no t supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s
brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on
mere inspection.”); see also State Dep’t of Labor & Indu s. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. ,
558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue).

7
In this case, both parties agree that th e best interests standard, and not the
modification standard, applies to initial dete rminations of a permanent parenting time
schedule, even when the district court is considering whether to make permanent the
schedule it had previously adopted on a temporary, or pendente lite, basis. The parties are
correct. Because the district court did no t make detailed findings regarding the best
interests factors, we are unable to review the permanent parenting time schedule adopted.
We reverse the district court deci sion and remand for further findings. See Thesing v.
Thesing, 390 N.W.2d 469, 471 (Mi nn. App. 1986) (remanding because this court was
“unable to determine whether the court cons idered the factors lis ted in Minn. Stat.
§ 518.17”); see also, e.g. , Rogge v. Rogge , 509 N.W.2d 163, 165-66 (Minn. App. 1993)
(remanding because, while the district court made “findings that appear to address” several
of the best interests factors, “it is unclear whether the tria l court considered all of the
relevant ‘best interests’ factors”), review denied (Minn. Jan. 28, 1994); Bjerke v. Wilcox,
384 N.W.2d 250, 252 (Minn. App. 1986) (remanding because “the legitimacy of the trial
court’s decision cannot be judged by the parties or by this court” without particularized
findings regarding the best interests factors). On remand, the district court is instructed to
make its findings regarding th e initial award of parenting tim e based only on evidence
received during the July 9, 2020 evidentiary hearing.2
Reversed and remanded.

2 A comparison to the initial parenting time awar d is required to determine the standards
and burdens of proof applicable to any future modification motions based on circumstances
that may have occurred after the July 9, 2020 evidentiary hearing.