In re the Custody of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0259

In re the Custody of:

J. A. V., A. J. V., C. R. S. B. and M. J. V.,

Araceli Danielle Salas, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Johnny Joseph Verdeja,
Respondent.

Filed May 15, 2023
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-FA-08-2003

Araceli D. Salas, Eagan, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Kelly Lawton Rogosheske, Rogosheske Law and Mediation PLLC, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Segal , Chief Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
Appellant Araceli Danielle Salas (mother) and respondent Johnny Joseph Verdeja
(father) share four children, al though they never married. The children were in mother’s
2
sole physical custody, subject to father’s parenting time, from birth until 2019 when father
sought sole legal and physical custody. Father alleged that the children were endangered
in mother’s care. After a contested hearing, the district court awarded temporary sole
physical custody of the children to father, joint legal custody to both parents, and parenting
time to mother. And after an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an August 2021
order awarding permanent sole physical custody to father and permanent joint legal
custody to both parents, but it reduced mother’s parenting time. Mother appeals. Because
the district court’s thorough decision is supported by the record, we affirm.
FACTS
Mother and father share four children: twin daughters born in 2006, a son born in
2008, and another son born in 2009. For the first part of the children’s lives, mother and
father shared legal custody, but mother had sole physical custody of the children, per a
November 2010 district court order. Children lived with mother and had parenting time
with father, who paid $300 in child support per month. In March 2019, mother filed a
motion for modification of child support. Soon after, father filed a motion seeking sole
legal and physical custody of children, claiming that they were endangered in mother’ s
care because of alleged criminal activity and domestic violence in her home. After a review
hearing, the district court found that father had made a prima facie showing of
endangerment, and it modified the custody and parenting-time order on a temporary basis
so that the children lived with father and had parenting time with mother pending a final
resolution of the parties’ disputes. This October 2019 order stated that mother received
parenting time every Wednesday after school until school drop off on Thursday morning
3
and every other weekend beginning Friday after school to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., the same
parenting time that father had when mother had sole physical custody.
After a May 2021 contested evidentiary hearing, the district court awarded
permanent sole physical custody of children to father and joint legal custody to both parents
in an August 2021 order. Mother’s parenting time was reduced to every other weekend
from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m.
Mother appeals.
1
DECISION
Mother challenges the district court’s decision in two respects. She argues that the
record does not support the district court’s findings regarding (a) modification of physical
custody and the children’s primary residence and (b) modification of parenting time. We
address each argument in turn.
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the November 2010
custody order to give father full physical custody of children.

Mother asks this court to reinstate the district court’s November 2010 order that
granted her permanent physical custody over all four children. We review a district court’s
custody-modification decision for an abuse of discretion. Sharp v. Bilbro ,
614 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 26, 2000). “A district
court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence,

1 Mother submitted a pro se appellate brief. Father, although represented by counsel at the
contested evidentiary hearing, did not submit a response brief. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
142.03 (stating that, if a respondent fails to file a brief, the appellate court will decide the
appeal on the merits).
4
misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.”
Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022) (quotation omitted). An appellate
court will “set aside a district court’s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving
deference to the district court’ s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility. ”
Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008).
Here, father sought to modify the child ren’s primary residence and the physical
custody order. As a result, the legal standard in Minnesota Statutes section 518.18(d)
(2022) applies to father’s motion. The relevant part of this standard requires the district
court to find that four elements are met in order to modify children’s primary physical
residence and custody based on endangerment:
1. The circumstances of the children or custodian have
changed;
2. Modification would serve the children’s best interests;
3. The children’s present environment endangers their
physical health, emotional health, or emotional
development; and
4. The benefits of the change outweigh its detriments with
respect to the children.

Crowley v. Meyer , 897 N.W.2d 288, 293 (Minn. 2017); see also
Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv).
The district court addressed each of the four required prongs for the endangerment
analysis. With regard to the first prong, it found that the circumstances of the children and
mother have changed because of the multiple criminal cases against mother since the
November 2010 order, the prevalence of domestic violence in mother’s home between
2010 and present, and multiple school-attendance issues for the children. These findings
5
of fact are supported by the record, which contains the guardian ad litem’s report listing
open criminal cases against mother at the time of the evidentiary hearing, hundreds of pages
of police reports involving domestic-violence issues at mother’s house, and testimony from
school officials about the attendance and behavioral issues the children faced.
Turning to the second prong, the district court found that modification of the
November 2010 custody order would serve the best interests of the children. See
Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (2022) (listing the best-interests factors). For example, the
district court found that father has demonstrated an ability and willingness to meet the
children’s physical, emotional, cultural, and other needs due to the activities father does
with children, the life skills he teaches them, and the way he prioritizes their education.
The district court found that the children’s attendance and grades improve when they are
in father’s care, which has benefitted the children’s well-being and development. It stated
that father can provide security and stability to children because his household has two
adults who have maintained full-time employment and can act as healthy role models for
the children. These findings are supported by the record, given the district court’s detailed
consideration of father’s testimony and father’s sister’s testimony, the preferences of the
older girls, the pattern of domestic abuse in mother’s house, and the testimony of school
personnel.
While both sons did express to the guardian ad litem their preference to remain with
mother, the guardian ad litem testified that this may be due to alienation, and the district
court found the guardian ad litem’s explanation persuasive. Because we do not reevaluate
6
the district court’s credibility determinations, this preference by two of the children is not
enough to overturn the best-interests finding. Goldman, 748 N.W.2d at 284.
Still, mother argues that awarding physical custody to father would not be in the
children’s best interest because the modification would take the children away from their
school.2 The effect of changes to home, school, and community on the child’s well-being
and development is one of the best-interests factors a court considers when modifying
custody and residence. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(8). But father testified that he is open
to the children staying at the same school, and the district court credited this testimony
when it found that father “supports the children continuing to attend school in Eagan and
playing sports where they attend school.”
Turning to the third prong in the endangerment analysis, the district court found that
the children’s living arrangements endanger and adversely affect their mental and
emotional health and development. “The existence of endangerment must be determined
on the particular facts of each case.” Amarreh v. Amarreh, 918 N.W.2d 228, 231
(Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted). Here, the district court based its decision on the
children’s exposure to domestic violence, the children’s problems with school attendance
and academic performance when they were in mother’s care, and father’s ability to provide
the children with a stable and secure home base. This finding is supported by evidence in
the record, such as testimony from the guardian ad litem about ongoing domestic violence

2 In her appellate brief, mother lists eight (purported) best-interests “factors” and alleges
that all the “factors” listed favor her. But these “factors” are different from the statutory
factors in Minnesota Statutes section 518.17, subdivision 1, which the district court
properly evaluated.
7
in mother’s home, testimony from the children’s principal about their improved attendance
and school performance in father’s care, and father’s testimony about his commitment to
the children attending therapy. When a court properly applies the law and that application
is supported by facts in the record, its decision is not against logic or facts in the record.
Bayer v. Bayer, 979 N.W.2d 507, 512-13 (Minn. App. 2022). The district court has done
so here, and as a result, its determination is not an abuse of discretion.
Finally, the district court determined that “the benefits of the change of physical
custody to [father] outweigh its detriments with respect to the children.” The court
acknowledged that mother losing her physical custody would cause some harm to children,
but it emphasized that the benefits of living in a domestic -violence-free environment with
a parent who is supportive of their educational and mental-health needs outweigh this harm.
This finding is also supported by the record described above.
Because the district court made findings under the proper legal standard that are
supported by the evidence in the record, and because its decision to modify custody is in
accordance with logic and the facts on the record, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in modifying the November 2010 custody decision to grant father full physical
custody of the children.3

3 Mother also challenges the district court’s decision modifying the children’s residence to
live with father, subject to mother’s parenting time. A child’s residence is part of the
district court’s overall custody decision, and it must serve the child’s best interests.
Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3(a)(2) (2022). Because the district court’s custody decision
was not an abuse of discretion, we conclude that the district court’s analysis of residence
also was not an abuse of discretion.
8
II. The district court did not err in its parenting-time decision.
Still, mother argues that even if the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
custody decision, its parenting-time decision was incorrect. She asks this court to reinstate
the parenting schedule in the district court’s November 2010 order.
This court will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district court abused
its discretion. Id. “Reversible abuses of discretion include misapplying the law or relying
on findings of fact that are not supported by the record.” Id. (quotation omitted).
In the October 2019 order, mother received parenting time every Wednesday after
school until school drop off on Thursday morning and every other weekend beginning
Friday after school to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., essentially granting her the parenting time that
father had when mother had sole physical custody. The August 2021 order reduced
mother’s parenting time to every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at
5:00 p.m., as father requested.
The applicable statute states that “[i]f modification would serve the best interests of
the child, the court shall modify . . . an order granting or denying parenting time, if the
modification would not change the child’s primary residence. Consideration of a child’s
best interest includes a child’s changing developmental needs.” Minn. Stat. § 518.175,
subd. 5(b) (2022). A district court “must find changed circumstances” when it reduces a
party’s parenting-time rights. Matson v. Matson, 638 N.W.2d 462, 468 (Minn. App. 2002).
Because the August 2021 order that mother appeals reduces her parenting time, but does
not change the children’s residence, the district court must find the modification in the
children’s best interests and the existence of changed circumstances.
9
The district court found that the children’s best interests would be served by its
decision and changed circumstances exist here. These changes included multiple criminal
cases against mother since the November 2010 order, the prevalence of domestic violence
in mother’s home between 2010 and present, and multiple school-attendance issues for the
children since 2010. And because the best-interests and changed-circumstances findings
were not clearly erroneous, as explained above, mother’s argument challenging the
parenting-time decision is unpersuasive. Mother alleges that the district court changed the
custody arrangement without her agreement, but because the district court followed the
proper legal avenue and made factual findings and conclusions supported by the record,
that argument is unavailing.
In sum, because the record supports the district court’s best-interests analysis and
decision to modify physical custody—including the children’s primary residence—and
parenting time, we affirm.
Affirmed.