In re 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1345

In re the Marriage of:

Andrew Jeffery Helmin, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Yuemin Xu,
Respondent.

Filed August 26, 2024
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge *

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-FA-18-587

Andrew J. Helmin, Eagan, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Debra J. Hilstrom, Debra J. Hilstrom Attorney at Law, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KIRK, Judge
In this custody dispute, appellant argues that (1) the record does not support the
district court’s selection of a school for the parties’ child and ( 2) the district court should
not have allowed respondent to take the child to China. We affirm.
FACTS
In this post -dissolution proceeding, appellant -father Andrew Jeffrey Helmin
contests the district court’s order that his child attend school in Eden Prairie and be issued
a passport so the child can travel to China with respondent -mother Yuemin Xu.
Father and mother married in 2017 and had a child who was born that same year.
The parties began dissolution proceedings in 2018. The parties reached a settlement
agreement on many issues, but proceeded to trial on childcare placement, international
travel and vacation parenting time, and the distribution of funds given to the parties by
mother’s parents.
For childcare placement, mother wished for the child to remain in the child’s current
placement, but father wanted the child to attend childcare at a more centrally located
placement between mother and father. The district court found that it was in the child’s
best interests to remain in the current childcare placement in Eden Prairie. For international
travel and vacation parenting time, the parties disputed whether the child should be allowed
to travel internationally. Mother is from China and wished to travel there with the child so
the child could have contact with extended family. Father argued that , because China is not
part of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, he would have no method to secure the
3
child’s return if mother refused to return the child to the United States. The district court
found that it was in the best interests of the child that the child be permitted to travel
internationally at the age of five.
The district court entered a final judgment on the marriage dissolution in April 2020
and ordered that mother and father share joint legal and joint physical custody of the child.
In 2023, after the child turned five years old, mother filed a motion in district court
seeking an order that the child attend school in the Eden Prairie School District and that
father execute the documents necessary for the child to travel to China, inc luding applying
for a passport. In response, father requested that the district court deny mother’s motion.
Father also moved for an order from the district court that the child attend school in the
Eagan School District and that the child be prohibited from traveling internationally unt il
the child is 16 years old.
Both mother and father filed affidavits supporting their motions. Following a
hearing at which the district court heard arguments but did not receive evidence or hear
testimony, the district court granted mother’s motion and denied father’s motion. Father
now appeals.
DECISION
Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it was
in the best interests of the child to (1) attend school in the Eden Prairie School District and
(2) be permitted to travel internationally to China. We disagree.
When parents share joint legal custody, they have “equal rights and responsibilities,
including the right to participate in major decisions determining the child ’s upbringing,
4
including education.” Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3(b) (2022). When joint legal custodians
cannot agree on where their child should attend school, the district court must resolve the
dispute based on the child ’s best interests. See Novak v. Novak , 446 N.W.2d 422, 424
(Minn. App. 1989) (“The law makes no distinction between general determinations of
custody and resolution of specific issues of custodial care.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 1,
1989). A child’s “best interests” are defined as “all relevant factors,” including the twelve
factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2022).
Appellate courts review the district court’s decision on an issue of legal custody for
an abuse of discretion. See Silbaugh v. Silbaugh, 543 N.W.2d 639, 641 (Minn. 1996) . “A
district court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or
improperly applying 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) (quoting
Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022)) . Appellate courts review factual
findings under a clearly erroneous standard and defer to the district court ’s credibilit y
determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow , 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) . When reviewing
factual findings for clear error, appellate courts (1) view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the findings, (2) do not find their own facts, (3) do not reweigh the evidence,
(4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence, and (5) “need not go into an extended discussion
of the evidence to provide or demonstrate the correctness of the findings of the [district]
court. . . . [A]n appellate court’s duty is fully performed after it has fairly considered all
the evidence and has determined that the evidence reasonably supports the decision.” In re
Civ. Commitment of Kenney , 963 N.W.2d 214, 221- 22 (Minn. 2021) (quotations and
5
citation omitted); see Ewald v. Nedrebo , 999 N.W.2d 546, 552 (Minn. App. 2023) (citing
Kenney in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 2024).
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the
child’s best interests to attend school in the Eden Prairie School District.

The district court determined that five of the best -interests factors favored the child
attending school in Eden Prairie, four factors were neutral, and three factors did not apply.
See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (outlining the best-interests factors). Father argues that
the district court’s determinations on five factors were clearly erroneous. We do not agree.
A. Factor One
Father challenges the district court ’s determination on factor one—the “ child’s
physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and other needs, and the effect of the proposed
arrangements on the child ’s needs and development .” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(1).
For this factor, the district court wrote:
The Court finds that it is important for the child to learn both
her Chinese and Ojibwe heritage. The Court finds that it will
be easier for the child to do that if [the child] ultimately attends
middle school in Eden Prairie. The Court does not find that the
selection of school makes it easier or harder for the child to
explore [the child’s] Ojibwe heritage but the selection of the
school[] system in Eden Prairie would make it easier to explore
[the child’s] Chinese heritage. This factor supports school in
Eden Prairie.

Father argues that the district court ignored his argument that the “Eagan school district
. . . does offer the Chinese language.”
The district court, however, did not find that the Eagan School District did not offer
instruction in Chinese, but just that the child attending school in the Eden Prairie School
6
District “would make it easier to explore [the child’s] Chinese heritage.” (Emphasis
added). This is supported by the record because mother provided specific details about the
Chinese program in the Eden Prairie schools, such as that it begins in middle school, versus
father’s general claim that the Eagan School District offers a Chinese language program.
B. Factor Four
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor four, which is “whether
domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01, has occurred in the parents ’ or either
parent’s household or relationship; the nature and context of the domestic abuse; and the
implications of the domestic abuse for parenting and for the child ’s safety, well-being, and
developmental needs.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4). For factor four, the district court
wrote, “[Mother] argues that she had an Order for Protection against [father] in 2018
because [father] allegedly threatened her. The OFP has since expired. [Father] argues that
this event is too remote in time to guide the analysis of this motion and the Court agrees.
This factor is neutral. ” Father argues that the district court did not consider evidence that
father submitted that mother had committed domestic abuse against the child.
Appellate courts, however, do not reconcile conflicting evidence. Gada v. Dedefo,
684 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that, on appeal, appellate courts “neither
reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are
exclusively the province of the fact[ -]finder”). And the record supports the district court’s
finding that the OFP had no bearing on the proceedings because the OFP was issued in
2018 and expired in 2020, three years before mother’s motion.

7
C. Factor Six
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor six, which is “ the
history and nature of each parent ’s participation in providing care for the child .” Minn.
Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(6). For this factor, the district court wrote, “ The Court finds that
both parents have been involved with the care of the child, but [mother] slightly more so.
This factor favors Eden Prairie, but only slightly.” Father argues that because he
participates in providing care for the child, the factor should be neutral.
Again, we do not reconcile conflicting evidence. Gada, 684 N.W.2d at 514. And,
moreover, t he district court’s finding is supported by the record because both mother and
father stated in their affidavits that they took the child for medical care.
D. Factor Seven
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor seven, which is “ the
willingness and ability of each parent to provide ongoing care for the child; to meet the
child’s ongoing developmental, emotional, spiritual, and cultural needs; and to maintain
consistency and follow through with parenting time .” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(7).
For this factor, the district court wrote ,
The Court finds that both parents are able and willing to care
for the child and meet the child’s needs. The Court finds that
the child will have both parents slightly closer if [the child]
attends school in Eden Prairie because [mother] will be
working from home in Eden Prairie and [father] w ill be
working in nearby Bloomington. Both parents collectively will
be further away if the child is in school in Eagan. In addition,
since [mother] works from home, the Court finds that [mother]
is probably better able to get the child and bring the child home
if the child is sick at school. This factor favors school in Eden
Prairie.
8
Father argues that the district court abused its discretion in its analysis of this factor because
mother and father have joint legal custody and each receive 50% of parenting time.
Although father challenges the factual findings that the district court made, appellate
courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence. Gada, 684 N.W.2d at 514. The record supports
the district court’s determination based on mother and father’s respective locations during
the school day.
E. Factor Eight
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor eight, which is “ the
effect on the child ’s well- being and development of changes to home, school, and
community.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(8). For this factor, the district court wrote,
The Court does not find an appreciable difference between
Eden Prairie schools and Eagan schools, both are excellent.
Court finds that [father]’s housing, while a rental, is also stable
housing. The Court finds, however, that since the child already
attends Montessori school in Eden Prairie, the child already has
some friends in the district, which would provide some
continuity. The Court finds that this factor favors Eden Prairie.

Father argues that the district court did not consider the evidence he had presented to make
this determination.
Appellate courts, however, do not reweigh conflicting evidence. Gada, 684 N.W.2d
at 514. The district court’s finding is supported by the record based on mother’s affidavit,
which states that the child has friends in the Eden Prairie School District as she has been
attending school in the area .
Overall, the record supports the factual findings the district court made in its best -
interests analysis. Although father argues that the district court failed to make adequate
9
factual findings to support its order, we note that the district court made extensive factual
findings and carefully weighed each best-interest factor in arriving at its determination. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it
was in the child’s best interests to attend school in the Eden Prairie School District.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the
best interests of the child for the child to travel internationally.

The district court determined that four of the factors favored the child traveling to
China, four factors were neutral, and four factors did not apply. Father argues that the
district court’s findings on six of the factors were clearly erroneous . We do not agree.
A. Factor One
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor one, which includes
the child’s emotional and cultural needs. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(1). For this factor,
the district court wrote,
the Court finds that it is important for the child to learn [the
child’s] Chinese heritage and meet [the child’s] Chinese
relatives. The Court finds that [mother] intends to return to the
United States after traveling abroad with the child. The Court
does not f ind that China ’s status as a “Level 3 ” State
Department country presents endangerment concerns. The
Court notes that the advisory relates to arbitrary enforcement
of the law and inability to provide consular services. The Court
finds that since [mother] is a Chinese citizen and will be
visiting other Chinese citizens, they do not face the same risk
of arbitrary enforcement of the law or need for consular
services as might an American tourist.

Father argues that the level three travel warning present s endangerment concerns because
the child would be traveling as a U.S. citizen.
10
Just because “the record might support findings other than those made by the trial
court does not show that the court ’s findings are defective. ” Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607
N.W.2d 468, 474 (Minn. App. 2000). Although there is no evidence in the record regarding
the child’s citizenship, the district court ’s determination that traveling to China meets the
child’s emotional and cultural needs is supported by record a s is its finding that it is
important for the child to learn about her heritage and meet relatives.
B. Factor Four
Father challenges the district court’s determination on factor four, which is whether
domestic abuse has occurred. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4). The district court
determined that “this factor does not guide the analysis.” Father argues that he presented
evidence of child abuse that the district court did not consider.
Appellate courts, however, do not reweigh conflicting evidence. Gada, 684 N.W.2d
at 514. Even though father may have presented conflicting evidence, we conclude that the
record supports the district court’s determination because the OFP had expired and was
several years old.
C. Factors Six, Eight, and Nine
Father challenges the district court’s determinations on factors six, eight, and nine,
which are, respectively, the history and nature of each parent’s participation in providing
care for the child; the effect of changes on the child’s well -being; and the effect of the
changes on the relationships between the child and significant persons in the child’s life.
Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(6), (8), (9). The district court determined that travel to
China would further the child’s introduction to Chinese c ulture and meeting the child’s
11
extended family would allow the child to develop a relationship with the child’s extended
family. Father argues that the child may already have contact with extended family and the
Chinese culture through video conferencing.
First, we note that there is no evidence in the record about whether the child has
contact with extended family through video conferencing. In addition, the district court ’s
original decision to allow the child to travel internationally at the age of five is supported
by the record as is its finding that travelling to China would introduce the child to Chinese
culture and allow her to connect with extended family. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in its findings on these factors.
D. Factor Ten
Father challenges the district court’s determinations on factor ten, which is “ the
benefit to the child in maximizing parenting time with both parents and the detriment to
the child in limiting parenting time with either parent.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(10).
The district court determined that “ it is in the child’s best interest to have vacation time
with each parent, including with [mother] and in [mother]’s country of origin.” Father
argues that because mother and father agreed on vacation time in the divorce proceedings,
this factor is neutral.
The district court’s determination, however, is supported by the record because
mother wished to exercise her vacation time with the child, so for the purposes of
international travel, this factor favors the child being able to travel with mother.
Overall, the record supports the district court’s determination that it is in the best
interests of the child to travel to China with mother. Although father argues that the district
12
court failed to make adequate factual findings to support its order, the district court made
extensive factual findings and carefully weighed each best -interest factor in arriving at its
determination. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
determining that it was in the child’s best interests to travel to China with mother. 1
Affirmed.

1 Father makes two additional arguments. First, father argues that the district court’s
decision violates the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Father cites no legal
authority that mother’s potential travel to China with the child would violate the fourteenth
amendment, so we do not consider this argument. See In re Commitment of Kropp, 895
N.W.2d 647, 653 (Minn. App. 2017) (“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue
in the absence of adequate briefing .”), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017). Second, in his
reply brief, father asks this court to remove mother’s attorney as her counsel. Assuming
this court will grant that request, father’s reply brief also asks this court to strike mother’s
brief. A reply brief “must be confined to new matter ra ised” in respondent’s brief. Minn.
R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 3. Father’s requests to remove mother’s attorney and to strike
mother’s brief do not involve “new matter” raised in mother’s brief. Therefore, these
requests are not properly includable in fa ther’s reply brief. See Wood v. Diamonds Sports
Bar & Grill, Inc., 654 N.W.2d 704, 707 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that “[i]f an argument
is raised in a reply brief [that, among other things,] exceeds the scope of the respondent’s
brief, [the argument] is not properly before [the court of appeals] and may be stricken from
the reply brief”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 26, 2003). More specifically, a brief —reply or
otherwise—is not a proper vehicle for asking this court to remove an attorney. Nor is a
brief a proper vehicle for asking this court to strike a brief. A brief is a vehicle for
addressing appellate review of the rulings of a district court. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
128.02, subds. 1- 3. Neither removing mother’s attorney nor striking mother’s brief
involves review of a ruling of the district court. Further, Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 127 is clear:
“Unless another form is prescribed by these rules, an application for an order or other relief
shall be made by serving and filing a written motion for the order or relief.” Another form
of relief is prescribed for neither removing counsel nor striking a brief. Thus, for father’s
requests for relief on these matters to be properly before this court, father needed to make
those requests by a motion separate from his brief. Because he did not do so, those requests
are not properly before this court. We note, however, that even if father properly presented
his requests for relief on these matters by a separate motion, we would have denied those
requests.