In re the Marriage of: Holly Joy Klick, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0569

In re the Marriage of: Holly Joy Klick, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Timothy Richard Klick,
Respondent.

Filed May 31, 2022
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-13-7343

Bradley John Haddy, Minnesota Esquire, LLC, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Timothy Richard Klick, Plymouth, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Pres iding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this parenting time disp ute, the district court initially granted appellant’s
emergency motion to temporarily suspend re spondent’s parenting time and temporarily
award sole physical and sole legal custody to appellant. Af ter several months and based
on recommendations from a guardian ad litem (GAL), the district court ordered the parties
2
to gradually increase respondent’s parenti ng time, return to an equal parenting time
schedule, and return to a joint physical an d joint legal custody arrangement. Appellant
challenges the following four aspects of the de cision: (1) the district court’s denial of
appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing; (2) the district court’s decision to return to
an equal parenting time schedule; 1 (3) the district court’s denial of appellant’s request to
allow the child to testify; and (4) the district court’s failure to create a record of two
telephone conferences. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
reaching its decisions with respect to the firs t three arguments and that appellant’s fourth
argument is forfeited.
FACTS
Appellant Holly Klick (mother) and respondent Timothy Klick (father) married in
2008 and are the parents of one daughter (the child), who is now 11 years old. The parties
divorced in 2014. The dissolution decree awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical
custody of the child, subject to father’s “rea sonable parenting time.” At that time, the
parties also agreed to work with a parenting consultant. In the spring of 2018, the parties
agreed to a stipulation modifying the original decree and providing for an equal parenting
time schedule. On October 8, 2020, mother filed an emergency motion to temporarily
modify custody and parenting time, alleging that the child was physically and emotionally
endangered in father’s care. The motion requested that the district court temporarily
suspend father’s parenting time and temporarily award mother sole legal and sole physical

1 Appellant does not challenge the decision to return to a joint custody arrangement.
3
custody of the child, pending father’s co mpletion of various conditions, including a
chemical assessment, any recommended treatment, and therapy.
Mother submitted an affidav it in support of her emerge ncy motion. The affidavit
alleged that father abused al cohol and frequently placed the child in physical danger by
driving under the influence of alcohol while the child was in the car. Mother specifically
discussed a recent incident in which police arrested father in the parking lot of the child’s
school and charged father with gross misd emeanor driving while intoxicated (DWI).
According to the affidavit, the child asked to speak with police on her own initiative, and
she told the officers that father emotionally abused her. Mo ther’s affidavit also alleged
that father emotionally abused the child in various ways, such as by “say[ing] hurtful and
abusive things” to her, forcing her to stay in her room alone for hours, and making her feel
threatened if she was not complicit in his drinking habits. In response to mother’s motion,
father submitted a sworn statement denying most of mother’s allegations.
Four days after mother filed her emergenc y motion, the district court issued an
ex parte order granting most of mother’s re quested relief. The district court awarded
mother temporary sole legal and sole physic al custody of the child, and it temporarily
suspended father’s parenting time, pending an emergency h earing to be held one week
later. At the emergency hearing, mother requested that the district court hold an evidentiary
hearing on her motion. Mother clarified that she was seeking only temporary changes, not
a permanent modification of custody or paren ting time. Mother also requested that the
evidentiary hearing include testimony from the child through an in camera interview.
4
The district court made some decisions on the record at the emergency hearing and
later memorialized these in a November 19, 2020 order. The district court granted
mother’s temporary motion but declined to hold an evidentiary hearing at that time, noting
that an evidentiary hearing was not required because mother did not request a permanent
change in custody. The district court also denied mother’s motion to interview the child in
camera. Instead, the district court appointed a GAL to make recommendations after
interviewing the child and any other necessary individuals. The district court also ordered
all of father’s parenting time to be supervis ed but did not issue a specific schedule or
specify how long the supervision requirement would last.
On December 18, 2020, the GAL filed a “short report,” which summarized her
investigation and recommendations based on th e information she had obtained up to that
point. The GAL’s recommendations included the following: the child should continue
individual therapy; the partie s should undergo family therapy; father should begin two,
two-hour sessions of supervised parenting time each week at a superv ision center; father
should undergo alcohol testing prior to and af ter his supervised vis its; and father should
comply with all recommendatio ns from his chemical depend ency assessment. Mother
objected to the GAL’s recommendations and the district court held an informal phone
conference with the parties, off the record, on January 5, 2021 . The district court issued
an order the next day, memorializing the pa rties’ discussions and the district court’s
decision to adopt the GAL’s recommendations over mother’s objections. The district court
continued its previous award of temporary sole legal and sole physical custody to mother.
The district court, however, permitted father to have two, two-hour sessions of supervised
5
parenting time each week at a supervision center. The order allowed father to have phone
contact with the child, but only as arranged by mother. In addition, the parties were to
begin family therapy, continue the child’s individual counse ling, and complete one “full
panel drug screen.” Father was also ordered to submit to alcohol testing before and within
ten minutes after his supervised parentin g time, and he was ordered to follow all
recommendations of his chemical dependency assessment. In the order, the district court
also noted that “there are no pending requests for permanent relief in this matter.”
The GAL filed a full report on February 19, 2021. The report noted that, as part of
her investigation, the GAL had interviewed both parents, the child, the child’s therapists, a
social worker, and the parenting consultant wh o has worked with the parties since 2014.
In addition, the GAL had review ed the parenting consultant’s records, police records, the
counseling progress report, and relevant cour t filings and affidavits. The GAL reported
that there was “a high level of animosity and tension exhibited by both parents with regards
to the opposite parent.” The GAL had inte rviewed the child twice, and she was “highly
concerned” that mother was potentially coaching the child to make certain comments about
father, based on the child “m ispronouncing big words that were not age-appropriate in
reference to this court case.” Based on obse rvations of the child’s parenting time with
father, the GAL believed that there was “a strong father-child attachment.” The GAL
commented that mother’s reporting of events involving the child often differed from the
child’s accounts, as well as the GAL’s impressions.
The GAL report also explained that shortly after his DWI arrest in October 2020,
father completed a chemical assessment. Th e assessment determined that father did not
6
meet the criteria for substance use disorder but recommended that he abstain from all
mood-altering substances. The GAL also noted that father tested positive for alcohol use
in January 2021. The GAL op ined that father’s DWI and positive urinalysis test were
“concerning” and “add[ed] credibility to the concerns brought forth by” mother. The police
records from father’s DWI arrest showed th at, after police spoke with child protective
services, police closed the criminal investigation.
Based on her investigation, the GAL conclu ded that “[w]hile [father’s] infractions
with drinking are a cause for concern, so is the infringement on his role as [father]” by
mother. The GAL opined that the amount of pa rental conflict needed to be addressed to
ensure that the child could develop a hea lthy relationship with each parent. The GAL
recommended that the district court adopt a graduated parenting time schedule. Under this
arrangement, as father met certain conditions , such as completing a chemical assessment
and participating in family therapy, father would gradually increase his parenting time with
the child until the parties would eventually resume an equal parenting time schedule.
On February 23, 2021, the district cour t held a telephone conference with the
parties, off the record. The district court memorialized the discussions in a March 2, 2021
order.2 The district court again rejected mothe r’s requests for an ev identiary hearing and
to interview the child, findi ng that the child “has been intervie wed extensively by
professionals” and “that the minor child’s therapists are in a better position than the Court

2 The district court originally issued its deci sion in a February 25, 2021 order, but it later
issued an amended order on March 2, 2021, to show the correct signature date. We address
the amended order because mother’s notice of appeal referred to the March 2, 2021 order.
7
to recommend further assessments and evaluati ons of the minor child’s mental health.”
The district court reasoned that the child “would be best served by her parents deescalating
their conflict, not by prol onged litigation,” and that the GAL’s recommendations
appropriately considered the child’s interests. Accordingly, the district court adopted the
GAL’s recommendations and or dered the parties to follow a four-phase parenting time
schedule. Father’s parenti ng time would gradually increas e, conditioned on father’s
compliance with certain specified requirements and with the involvement of the parenting
consultant. The parties would ultimately return to an equal parenting time schedule at some
unspecified point in the future, but only after family therapy had begun and father
completed all recommendations of his chemic al dependency assessmen t. In addition,
should father test positive fo r any mood-altering chemicals, the parenting consultant had
authority to determine when and whether father would progress to the final stage.
Mother requested permission to bring a mo tion to reconsider, which the district
court denied. Mother appeals.3

3 As a preliminary matter, although the parties did not brief this issue, we question whether
mother has standing to bring this appeal. “To have standing to appeal, a party must be
aggrieved by the decision of a court from which the party appeals.” Webster v. Hennepin
County, 910 N.W.2d 420, 434 (Minn. 2018). We observe that the district court granted
much of the relief that mother sought in her temporary mo tion. That motion asked the
district court to temporarily grant her sole legal and physical cust ody and to temporarily
suspend father’s parenting time. The dist rict court did so, granting the request from
October 2020 through some indefinite poin t after March 2021 when father had the
opportunity to progress through the four-phase parenting time schedule. We need not
decide, however, whether this is sufficient for mother to have standing because we
conclude that mother’s arguments fail on their merits.
8
DECISION
Mother challenges the following four aspects of the district court’s decision: (1) the
denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing; (2) the de cision to return to an equal
parenting time arrangement; (3) the denial of her request to interview the child in camera
as part of the evidentiary hearing; and (4) th e failure to create a re cord of two telephone
conferences. We address each argument in turn.
I. Denial of Request for an Evidentiary Hearing
Mother first argues that the district court erred by refusing to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on her emergency, temporary modification motion. We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it decided not to hold an evidentiary hearing because
the district court considered the parties’ written and verbal submissions, which provided
extensive factual information, and because mo ther does not identify what facts she was
unable to present through previous submissions.
Mother’s motion sought temporary relief, and the parties and the district court
treated this motion as a request governed by Minnesota Statutes section 518.131 (2020).
This statute provides that temporary orders are to be made “solely on the basis of affidavits
and argument of counsel,” unless either part y moves “that the matter be heard on oral
testimony before the court, or if the court in its discreti on orders the taking of oral
testimony.” Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subd. 8. Similarly, the General Rules of Practice
provide that, with limited exce ptions, family court “[m]otions shall be submitted on
affidavits, exhibits, documents subpoenaed to the hearing, memoranda, and arguments of
counsel.” Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 303.03(d)(1). A party requesting that the district court take
9
oral testimony must make a motion to do so “not later than the filing of that party’s initial
motion documents.” Id. (d)(2). Both the statute and the rules acknowledge that district
courts generally do not hold evidentiary hearings,4 and we review that decision for an abuse
of discretion. Anh Phuong Le v. Holter , 838 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. App. 2013). A
district court abuses its discretion if it acts against logic or the undisputed facts in the
record. Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. 2002).
Here, the district court initially grante d mother’s requested relief, suspending
father’s parenting time, granting mother sole custody, prohibiting father from having
contact with the child, and appointing the GAL to investigate and make recommendations
regarding the duration of the temporary relief gr anted. Over the course of the next few
months, father was required to comply w ith several conditions regarding chemical
dependency, testing for use of mood-altering chemicals, fam ily therapy, and the child’s
individual counseling. The parties presented written subm issions regarding father’s
conduct. In addition, the GAL submitted a final written re port after reviewing records
(including the parenting consu ltant’s records, police record s, the counseling progress
report, and the parties’ court filings and affidavits) and c onducting interviews (including
with both parents, the child, the child’s therapists, a soci al worker, and the parenting
consultant who had been helping the parties resolve disputes since their divorce in 2014).

4 We recognize that an ev identiary hearing may be re quired when a party requests
permanent modification of custody or permanent and substantial modification of parenting
time. Minn. Stat. §§ 518.175, .18 (2020); Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284
(Minn. 2008); Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330, 336 (Minn. App. 2014). Mother does not
argue that these provisions apply to her temporary modification motion.
10
These written submissions were thorough, and the parties had ample opportunity to
make arguments. We also observe that the parties had a parenting consultant appointed to
resolve parenting time disputes, and, other than the testimony of the child, mother does not
point to any facts that she was unable to present through written submissions. Given these
observations as well as the temporary nature of mother’s requested relief, mother has not
shown that the district court abused its di scretion by relying on the written and verbal
submissions of the parties and the GAL instead of proceeding with an evidentiary hearing.
II. Decision to Return to Equal Parenting Time
Mother challenges the factual findings unde rlying the district court’s decision to
return to equal parenting time. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when
it relied on the facts in the GAL’s report.
When reviewing a parenting time decision, we review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error. Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Minn. App. 2009). A finding
is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000). Appellate
courts do not reconcile conflicti ng evidence or weigh the evid ence as if considering the
matter de novo. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney , 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021).
When evidence in the record supports the findings at issue on appeal, it is immaterial that
the record might also support findings to the contrary. Id. at 223.
Mother challenges the district court’s factual finding that mother had “coached” the
child. We are not conv inced by this argument, given our standard of review. The GAL
explained her suspicions, noting that the chil d “was mispronouncing big words that were
11
not age-appropriate.” In addition, the GAL’ s observations of the child’s parenting time
with father conflicted with mother’s accoun t of this contact. Based on her first-hand
observations, the GAL believed that the child and her father had a strong relationship, and
the GAL included examples from her experience and training to support this belief. While
mother’s statements could support altern ative findings, we do not weigh conflicting
evidence, see Kenney , 963 N.W.2d at 221, 22 3, and conclude that the record contains
sufficient evidence to support the findings made by the district court.5
III. Denial of Request to Interview the Child
Mother also argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her request
to allow the child to testify or for the district court to interview the child in camera. Because
the district court’s decision not to interview the child was not against logic or the factual
findings, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The Minnesota General Rules of Practice provide that for motions related to custody
or visitation, “[n]o child under the age of fourteen years will be allowed to testify without
prior written notice to the other party and court approval.” Minn. R. Gen.
Prac. 303.03(d)(7). We review a decision regarding whether to interview the child for an
abuse of discretion. Knott v. Knott, 418 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Minn. App. 1988).
In this case, the district court received statements regarding the child’s preference
and the child’s relationship with father from mother and the GAL. The GAL interviewed
the child twice and observed her interactions with father during parenting time. In addition,

5 Mother does not argue that the factual fi ndings do not support eq ual parenting time.
Rather, mother argues that the district court should have made alternative factual findings.
12
the GAL communicated w ith the child’s therapists and sc hool social worker and learned
what the child had reported to those professi onals. The GAL relayed this information in
her report. The GAL also expressed suspicion that mother u nduly influenced the child.
The district court also considered the complex history of the parents’ disputes and tried to
ascertain what impact this conflict had on the child. Gi ven the information contained in
the GAL’s report, the district court’s concerns about mother’s influence on the child, and
the concerns about the parents’ escalating c onflict, the district court acted within its
discretion when it decided not to allow the child to testify or be interviewed in camera.
IV. Failure to Create a Record of Two Telephone Conferences
Finally, mother argues that the district court erred by failing to create a record of the
January 5 and February 23, 202 1 telephone conferences. Mo ther cites no legal authority
to support this argument and conceded at or al argument that there was no authority
requiring the district court to create a transcript of these proceedings. 6 Nor does mother
identify any inaccuracies in the district court’s written summary of these conferences, argue
that the district court violat ed her due process rights, or explain how the outcome would
have been different if the conferences had been recorded. Accordingly, we deem the
argument forfeited. State, Dep’t of Labor & Indu s. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, 558 N.W.2d
480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach issue not adequately briefed); Brodsky v.
Brodsky, 733 N.W.2d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family law appeal);

6 Mother cites one unpublished case, Robbennolt v. Weigum , No. A15-1440, 2016 WL
1551686, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr. 18, 2016). In that nonbinding case, we noted the specific
standard of review that applies to cases with a limited appellate record, but that case does
not support the legal proposition articulated by mother.
13
see also Waters v. Fiebelkorn , 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) (“[O]n appeal error
is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal. . . .
[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.”).
Affirmed.