In the Marriage 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0845

In the Marriage of:

Alison Brooke Hurst, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

William Charles Hurst,
Appellant.

Filed June 20, 2023
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-FA-12-237

Terri Port Wright, Port Wright Law Office, Cloquet, Minnesota (for respondent)

Shawn B. Reed, Bray & Reed, Ltd., Duluth, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
COCHRAN, Judge
Appellant-father challenges a district court order denying his motion to modify
parenting time and discharge the children’s therapy services, arguing that the district
court’s factual findings are not supported by the record. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant William Hurst (father) and respondent Alison Hurst (mother) are the
parents of Child 1, born in 2005, and Child 2, born in 2011. The parties were married in
2005 and divorced in 2012. The divorce decree awarded mother and father joint legal and
joint physical custody with equal parenting time. Since their divorce, the parties have had
ongoing disputes regarding custody and parenting time.
Between 2014 and 2019, mother reported father to child protective services on three
occasions. The first two reports did not result in any adverse action against father. During
the county’s investigation into the third report, mother petitioned for an order for protection
(OFP) against father and on behalf of the children and herself. In May 2019, the district
court issued an ex parte OFP and granted mother temporary sole custody of the children.
By January 2020, the district court dismissed the OFP. Around the same time, the children
participated in a diagnostic assessment and were enrolled in individual therapy at Paradigm
Therapy Services.
January 2021 Motion
Approximately one year later, father filed a motion to enforce the original
parenting-time order and to modify custody, alleging that he had not had direct in-person
contact with the children since May 2019. Father argued that he was entitled to parenting
time because the OFP had been dismissed . He also argued that mother’s actions and
behaviors interfered with his court-ordered parenting time and endangered the children,
warranting a modification of custo dy. The district court held a three-day evidentiary
3
hearing on father’s motion that concluded in May 2021. The district court heard testimony
from father, Child 1’s therapist, and Child 2’s therapist, among others.
Father testified that he believed mother was intentionally interfering with his
parenting time. He further testified that he believed the children were being “coached” by
mother to make certain statements during the child- protection investigations and that
mother was engaged in parental alienation. Father stated that he would like to see his
children “without interruption, without interference from their mother, [and] without false
allegations towards [him].” Throughout his testimony, father also expressed distrust of the
children’s therapy provider, Paradigm Therapy Services.
Child 2’s therapist with Paradigm also testified. She testified that Child 2 was
participating in trauma therapy to provide Child 2 with the skills to “learn about trauma,
[and] process the traumatic events that she experienced.” She also explained that there
could be an opportunity for Child 2’s parents to participate in Child 2’s therapy. Child 2’s
therapist testified that father had not called or communicated with her, nor had she been in
contact with him. She stated that she is willing to work with father and Child 2 to rebuild
their relationship, but that immediate reintegration was not in Child 2’s best interests at
that time.
Child 1’s therapist testified that Child 1 was participating in trauma therapy as well,
working to process events, learn coping skills, and improve their1 relationship with father.
Child 1’s therapist testified that a “critical part” of Child 1’s therapy is figuring out “what

1 Based on Child 1’s preferences expressed in the record before us, we use they/them
pronouns when referring to Child 1.
4
type of relationship [Child 1] should have with [their] father.” Child 1’s therapist testified
that he had called father and left a message, but that father did not return the call. He also
stated that he would be willing to work with Child 1 and father to rebuild their relationship
but that he did not believe a return to equal parenting time with father would be in Child 1’s
best interests at that time.
June 2021 Order
In June 2021, the district court issued an order restoring joint legal and joint physical
custody to father. But the district court found that a return to immediate and direct
parenting time with father could cause regression in the children’s therapy and would not
improve the familial relationship. The district court determined that father was entitled to
parenting time but that the “re-initiation of parenting time shall be therapeutically guided”
by the children’s therapists to “maintain as much stability and consistency as possible, and
with sensitivity toward the trauma [the children] have experienced.” The district court
ordered father to listen to the therapists ’ recommendations for easing back into parenting
time and ordered mother to not delay the initiation of father’s parenting time. The district
court also ordered father to co ntinue individual therapy and ordered mother to begin
individual therapy. Father did not appeal this order.
Events Following June 2021 Order
After the district court issued its June 2021 order, father did not contact Paradigm.
Instead, between July and August, the children’s therapists contacted father. Shortly
thereafter, father began meeting with the children’s therapists individually. The therapists
also guided meetings between father and the children. Beginning in October, father started
5
speaking with Child 2 over the phone under the supervision of Child 2’s therapist. And in
November, father and Child 2 met via videoconference under the supervision of Child 2’s
therapist. By mid-December, Child 2’s therapist informed father that they could progress
to an in-person meeting, and they scheduled the visit for January 11. Around this same
time, father met with Child 1 via video conference for the first time under the supervision
of Child 1’s therapist.
In January 2022, before father’s scheduled in-person therapy session with Child 2,
Child 2’s therapist called father. They discussed a list of topics that the therapist had
recently covered with Child 2. Father recorded the phone call. The two first discussed
belated Christmas presents that father might bring to the in -person meeting. Father noted
that he was hesitant to bring “a bunch of presents and money” to the first in-person session
but that, if the child was expecting that, he did not want to disappoint her. The therapist
responded that father could do as he wished regarding the presents. The therapist next
noted that Child 2 had dyed her hair. The therapist stated that Child 2 wanted father to
know ahead of time and that Child 2 did not want to hear any negative comments about her
choice to change her hair color. Father responded that mother should not be allowed to
change the children’s appearance without first discussing it with him.
The last topic discussed was an apology. The therapist told father that Child 2
wanted an apology from father “[f]or making her feel uncomfortable in the past.” Father
expressed concern that the apology would “validate something” that was untrue. He further
stated that he had not done anything wrong and should not apologize. He also believed
any apology would perpetuate “the parental alienation.” The therapist explained that an
6
apology would not validate any false accusations but instead would focus on a
“child-centered perspective.” She expected that the apology would sound like, “I apologize
if you felt uncomfortable.” Father stated, “That’s not happening” and asserted that mother
should instead be the one to apologize. The therapist asked if they could “table this apology
conversation” and come back to it later.
After the phone call, Child 2’s therapist consulted with Paradigm’s director and
decided to cancel the upcoming in-person session. Child 2’s therapist informed Child 2
about the cancellation. In doing so, the therapist shared details of the phone call between
the therapist and father. The therapist informed Child 2 about father’s comments regarding
her hair and his feelings about her request for an apology.
To inform father about the cancellation, the therapist prepared a formal letter. In
the letter, the therapist expressed her concerns about father’s refusal to apologize. The
therapist noted that the issue “ha[d] been discussed numerous times” and reiterated that the
request was made for the purpose of validating Child 2’s emotions. The therapist a lso
discussed two other concerns that led to the cancellation: father’s negative comments about
Child 2’s dyed hair, and father’s stated intention to bring just one Christmas present to the
in-person meeting even though Child 2 knew that father had numerous presents for her at
his home. The therapist noted that father’s intention to bring only one Christmas present
“raised concerns about [his] understanding of the emotional effect of [his] choices on
[Child 2] and could reasonably be construed as related to [his] frustration with her request
for an apology and her hair.” The therapist expressed concern that father’s approach to
certain issues would cause father’s initial interactions with Child 2 to be unsuccessful. The
7
therapist requested that father contact her to address the se issues and to discuss the
possibility of rescheduling the in-person session. Father chose not to do so.
On February 9, 2022, the director of Paradigm temporarily suspended all family
therapy. In a letter announcing this decision, the director noted that father had filed
complaints against at least two clinicians at Paradigm and had most recently filed a
complaint against the director for “undue influence on the diagnosis of and services
provided to” Child 2. The letter noted that the family therapy services would be suspended
until the investigation into the complaint was complete to “avoid the appearance of some
type of undue influence” but that family t herapy services could continue once the
investigation was complete.
Around the same time, father’s counsel sent Paradigm a letter regarding the
cancellation of the in- person visit between father and Child 2. Counsel wrote that the
cancellation of the in-person session was “just another unnecessary delay.” Counsel also
asserted that Paradigm’s decision to tell Child 2 about father’s comments regarding the
child’s request for an apology amounted to a “breach of trust” and “created unnecessary
harm to the relationship” between father and Child 2. Counsel asked Paradigm to send a
response informing father of how Paradigm was advancing reunification efforts.
On February 14, 2022, Paradigm responded in an email to the parties stating that
therapy services could continue for the children, but that Paradigm would no longer provide
family therapy or therapeutically guided visits. The email noted that “this decision is based
solely on [father’s counsel’s] ongoing allegations, lack of understanding and respect for
the professional judgment and decision- making capacity of the providers, inability to
8
recognize that [the children] are the clients in the matter, and reaction to clinical decisions
that he does not seem to thoroughly understand.” The email also explained that the decision
was not based on any interaction or action of father, mother, or the children themselves.
Paradigm later sent a follow-up letter stating that Paradigm was willing to resume family
therapy under certain conditions.
March 2022 Motion
On March 28, 2022, father filed a motion asking the district court to discharge
Paradigm from providing therapy services to the children and family. Alternatively, father
requested that he be granted direct parenting time. In support of his motion, father argued
that Paradigm wrongfully cancelled his in-person session with Child 2 and was
unreasonably delaying his return to parenting time. Mother opposed the motion, arguing
that father had delayed reunification therapy and contending that any changes to the
children’s therapy would hinder the positive relationships the children had built with their
therapists.
In a May 2022 order, the district court denied father’s motion to discharge Paradigm
and have direct parenting time. The district court reasoned that discharging Paradigm
would not be in the children’s best interests because “the children are comfortable,
progressing, and supported at Paradigm.” The district court also found that “[c]hanging
therapists . . . would only delay things further.” The district court noted that the June 2021
order laid out the reasons why reunification with father should be therapeutically guided.
The district court acknowledged that the February 14 email from Paradigm “raises
concerns about Paradigm’s willingness to fulfill the ‘therapeutically guided’ mandate of
9
this Court’s order” but found that “Paradigm is not refusing to provide the services.” The
district court determined that “the children are healing and doing well overall in therapy
with Paradigm. Forcing them to find new therapists would only harm them further.” The
district court encouraged all parties to “sit down and discuss the matter to clarify what is
expected for reunification therapy going forward.”
The district court concluded that “there is no indication that the therapists or
[m]other is hindering or procrastinating [f]ather’s reunification with the children.” Instead,
the court reasoned that father’s actions were the primary cause of the delay in reunification
as “[h]e has not called therapists in a timely manner, he has refused to apologize or respect
[Child 2’s] boundaries, and he repeatedly puts blame on others rather than focusing on the
children’s needs.” Accordingly, the district court denied father’s request for direct
parenting time, reiterating that father’s reunification must be “therapeutically guided and
within the boundaries the children are setting for themselves.”
Father appeals.
DECISION
Father challenges the district court’s order denying his motion to discharge
Paradigm or, in the alternative, for an order requiring immediate, direct parenting time.
2

2 In his brief, father also references his fundamental right to parent his children under the
United States Constitution. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (recognizing
the fundamental right to parent under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment). During oral argument before this court, father clarified that he is not
challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota’s parenting-time and child-custody statutes.
Nor is he challenging the constitutionality of the district court’s application of the law. But
even assuming father is raising arguments based on the constitution , father’s arguments
fail because he did not raise them before the district court. See Thiele v. Stich,
10
“District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time.”
Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 2018). “A district court abuses its
discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, 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).
Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying father’s motion
because (1) the district court failed to address his argument that there was “a breach of
trust” by Paradigm, and (2) the record demonstrates that Paradigm, not father, was the
primary cause of delay in reunification. We are not convinced.
Father first argues that we should reverse the district court’s order because the
district court did not address his argument that Child 2’s therapist “breached [his] trust”
when the therapist told Child 2 about father’s response to the child’s request for an apology.
This argument misses the mark because it fails to consider the applicable legal standard for
modifying parenting ti me. When considering a motion to modify parenting time, the
district court must base its decision on “ the best interests of the child.” Minn.
Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5(b) (2022). In its decision, the district court properly applied this
standard when it considered whether modifying parenting time and/or discontinuing
therapy with Paradigm would be in the children’s best interests. The district court
determined that the children were progressing, healing, and being supported by therapists

425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally consider only
the issues presented to, considered by, and decided by the district court); In re Welfare of
C.L.L., 310 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1981) (declining to address a constitutional issue
raised for the first time on appeal from a termination of parental rights).
11
at Paradigm. The district court denied father’s request for immediate and direct parenting
time, concluding that reunification must continue being therapeutically guided by
Paradigm to avoid undoing the progress the children had made. Accordingly, the district
court found that changing therapists was not in the children’s best interests and that a
change in therapy services would only delay reunification further.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the alleged “breach of trust” is relevant to the
determination of the children’s best interests, we note that father presented no evidence at
the hearing to demonstrate that the therapist’s discussion with Child 2 violated any
professional standards. Accordingly, there was no basis for the district court to conclude
that the therapist’s actions were not in Child 2’s best interests. In sum, father has failed to
demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the district court in its best-interests findings and
analysis.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by father’s argument that the district court abused
its discretion when it found that father’s own actions, rather than Paradigm’s actions, were
the primary cause of the delay in reunification. We review a district court’s factual findings
for clear error. Hansen, 908 N.W.2d at 599. “We will not conclude that a factfinder clearly
erred unless, on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221
(Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). When conducting our review, we do not reweigh the
evidence. Id. at 223. Rather, our duty on appeal is to fully and fairly consider whether the
evidence “reasonably tends to support the findings” of the district court. Id. (quotation
omitted).
12
Here, the district court found that father was the primary cause of the delay in
reunification because “[h]e has not called therapists in a timely manner, he has refused to
apologize or respect [Child 2’s] boundaries, and he repeatedly puts blame on others rather
than focusing on the children’s needs.” The evidence in the record amply supports these
findings.
First, the record reflects that father did not initiate contact with either child’s
therapist following the district court’s June 2021 order granting father parenting time
subject to reunification therapy. Instead, approximately a month after the district court
issued its order, Child 1’s therapist contacted father. Similarly, Child 2’s therapist initiated
the phone conversation with father regarding therapy sessions with Child 2. And, after
Paradigm cancelled the in-person meeting between Child 2 and father due to concerns for
the child’s wellbeing, father did not contact the therapist to discuss the outstanding issues
and the possibility of rescheduling the in-person session.
Similarly, the record reflects that father refused to apologize. In the phone call
between father and Child 2’s therapist prior to the scheduled in-person visit, Child 2’s
therapist informed father that Child 2 wanted an apology from father for making her feel
uncomfortable in the past. Father responded, “That’s not happening.”
Lastly, the record also supports the district court’s finding that father puts blame on
others and is “fixated on his own feelings.” During the phone call with Child 2’s therapist,
father stated that mother should be the one apologizing and that he “didn’t do anything
wrong.” On this record, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred when it found
that father has been primarily responsible for the delay in reunification.
13
In sum, while we recognize that father continues to disagree with the pace of
reunification therapy and with some of the actions that Paradigm has taken, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s motion to discharge
the children’s therapists or, in the alternative, to modify parenting time.
Affirmed.