In re the Matter of: Brooks J. Waldron, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0853

In re the Matter of:
Brooks J. Waldron, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Uneica Nicole Garrett,
Appellant.

Filed January 9, 2023
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-16-1681

Brooks J. Waldron, Minnetonka, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Brian K. Lewis, Francis White Law, PLLC, Woodbury, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M. , Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Wheelock, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
In this custody-modification dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court
erred by denying her requested relief without holding an evidentiary hearing under an
endangerment-based modification standard pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2022).
We affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant-mother Uneica Nicole Garrett and respondent-father Brooks J. Waldron
were never married and have one child together, born in August 2015. Beginning in 2015,
the parties had a series of escalating arguments, and mother made statements that she was
intending to harm herself and the child. In January 2017, an initial custody and parenting-
time order established joint legal and joint physical custody of the child with an equal
parenting-time schedule. In September 2018, an order for protection was issued against
mother for threats she made against her own life and the life of the child. In February 2019,
the district court awarded father sole legal and sole physical custody.
In January 2022, mother moved the district court for, among other things, sole legal
and sole physical custody, an order for father to immunize the child against COVID-19,
and an evidentiary hearing as to whether father endangered the child by failing to immunize
against COVID-19. In support of her motion, mother submitted an affidavit, 46 pages of
exhibits, and a memorandum.
On March 8, 2022, the parties made arguments and submitted documentary
evidence.1 The district court addressed the child’s vaccination status directly with father
by asking two questions:
Q: Well, let’s just cut to the chase . . . Is [the child] vaccinated
now?
A: He’s not vaccinated, no.

Q: And what is your intent regarding the vaccination?

1 We note that at the March 2022 hearing, no witness testimony was taken and the
documentary evidence submitted by the parties consisted of affidavits and memorandums.
3
A: If I find that [the child] is in danger or I find some reason
that he needs to be vaccinated, I will vaccinate him.

In April 2022, the district court denied mother’s motions without an evidentiary
hearing. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Mother argues that father’s decision not to immunize the child from COVID -19
constitutes a “significant danger to the child and others,” and the district court erred by
denying her motion to modify custody for endangering the child. The district court noted
that father, as the child’s sole legal custodian, “has the ability to make these unilateral
decisions.” The district court determined that father was “within his authority to make that
medical decision for the child as the sole legal custodian.”
When considering a motion to modify custody based on child endangerment, the
district court is required to make multiple determinations, each of which requires the
application of a different standard of review. Amarreh v. Amarreh, 918 N.W.2d 228, 230
(Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2018). “First, we review de novo whether
the district court properly treated the allegations in the moving party’s affidavits as true,
disregarded the contrary allegations in the nonmoving party’s affidavits, and considered
only the explanatory allegations in the nonmoving party’s affidavits.” Id. at 230-31
(quotation omitted). Second, we determine whether the district court abused its discretion
when determining whether the moving party made a prima facie case for modification. Id.
at 231. A movant “ma[kes] a prima facie case by alleging facts that, if true, would provide
sufficient grounds for modification.” Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 507 (Minn.
4
2022); see Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , 732 N.W.2d 285, 292 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting, in
the context of addressing whether a party moving to modify custody made a prima facie
case that would entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing, that allegation that are
conclusory, vague, or unsupported by specific evidence are insufficient to make a prima
facie case). Third, “we review de novo whether the district court properly determined the
need for an evidentiary hearing.” Amarreh, 918 N.W.2d at 231 (quotation omitted).
In her affidavit, mother alleged that father’s “refusal to vaccinate [the] child,
particularly as an African-America n, endangers [the] child by leaving him defenseless
against [COVID-19].” Here, the district court properly treated mother’s affidavits as true
while disregarding any contrary allegations from father’s affidavits. The district court
noted that there is no dispute that the child is not vaccinated against COVID-19. The
district court even stated that it agreed with mother “that it is best practice to ensure that a
child is up-to-date with all vaccinations.”
We c onsider next whether mother made a prima facie showing that father’s
vaccination decision constitutes child endangerment. To make an initial showing of child
endangerment, mother, as the moving party, must allege a prima facie case to obtain an
evidentiary hearing. See Christensen v. Healey, 913 N.W.2d 437, 440 (Minn. 2018).
Generally, a prima facie case consists of allegations which, if true, would allow the district
court to grant the movant the relief sought. Amarreh, 918 N.W.2d at 231. To make a prima
facie showing, mother must allege that: (1) the circumstances of the child or father have
changed; (2) modification is in the child’s best interests; (3) the present environment
5
endangers the child’s physical or emotional health; and (4) the benefits the child receives
because of the change outweigh any potential detriments. Christensen, 913 N.W.2d at 440.
The district court determined that mother had “not provided a factual basis to show
that the present environment in the care and custody of [father] endangers the child.” The
record shows that mother’s child-endangerment claim is centered entirely on father’s
medical decision not to vaccinate the child.
Here, father has sole legal and sole physical custody of the child. As the child’s
legal custodian, father has the sole “right to determine the child’s upbringing, including
education, health care, and religious training.” See Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3(a)
(2022). Father’s decision not to vaccinate the child against COVID-19 is a health-care
determination. See id. The district court noted that father, as the child’s legal custodian,
“has the authority to make unilateral medical, religious and educational decisions for the
benefit of the child.”
For these reasons, mother failed to make a prima facie showing that father’s medical
decision endangered the child; therefore, mother was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s custody-
modification motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed.