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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0174

In re the Marriage of:

Michelle Marie Dillavou, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Joseph Alex Abel Sirois,
Respondent.

Filed December 9, 2024
Affirmed
Segal, Chief Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-FA-22-5912

J. Lee Novelli, Novelli Law Office, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Laurie Mack -Wagner, Lymari J. Santana, Mack & Santana Law Offices, P.C.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Ede,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SEGAL, Chief Judge
In this appeal, mother argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying
her motion to modify parenting time because the district court erroneously construed her
motion as a request to modify physical custody under Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2022). In the
2
alternative, mother argues that even if her motion is properly treated as a motion to modify
custody, the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518.18. Appellant also argues that the
district court’s best-interests findings are inadequate and unsupported by the record. We
affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-mother Michelle Marie Dillavou and respondent-father Joseph Alex Abel
Sirois were married in December 2007. They had one minor child born in December 2015,
while they were living in Colorado. The child has special needs and certain medical
conditions that require intensive care.
In 2021, the parties divorced in Colorado and entered into a “permanent parenting
plan” (PPP) to establish the parties’ parental responsibilities for the child and a parenting-
time schedule. In the PPP, the parties agreed to “make all major decisions regarding the
child jointly” and that “day-to-day decisions for the child shall be made by the parent with
whom he is staying.” The parties also agreed in the PPP to relocate to Minnesota,
specifically northern Scott County, even though father’s job was in Colorado. The PPP
specified “that the child’s school shall be in a location no further than 25 minutes from
Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport.” The PPP further provided that “after the parties move to
either Shakopee, Savage or Prior Lake, Minnesota, the parties agree . . . not to move the
child’s residence on a permanent basis more than fifteen (15) miles from the areas noted
herein” without consent of the other parent or court order.
The PPP provided a parenting-time schedule that gradually increased father’s
parenting time over four phases. The first two phases had specified durations, with phase
3
three scheduled to start two-and-a- half months after the move to Minnesota. The fourth
and final phase called for a 50-50 sharing of time “on a 5-2-2-5 schedule.” 1 The parties
signed and filed the PPP with the court in Colorado in April 2021, and mother later
registered it in Minnesota.
In July 2021, the parties rented an apartment in Savage and began practicing “a
nesting type of arrangement.” The child lived in the apartment in Savage with whichever
parent was exercising parenting time and was enrolled in the Prior Lake-Savage Area
Schools District. Initially, when mother was not exercising parenting time, she stayed with
her family in Mankato and, when father was not exercising parenting time, he returned to
Colorado, where he still worked. F ather later received permission from his employer to
work remotely and purchased a home in South Minneapolis. Around the same time father
purchased the home in South Minneapolis, mother purchased a home in St. Peter,
Minnesota. It is undisputed that the St. Peter house is outside the geographic area specified
in the PPP.
In August 2023, mother filed a motion requesting that the district court (1) modify
the parties’ parenting-time schedule such that father would have “parenting time every
other Thursday through Sunday overnight and Mother has all other times,” (2) order that
the child be enrolled in school in St. Peter, and (3) allow mother and the child to relocate
to mother’s house in St. Peter. In the affidavit supporting her motion, mother alleged that
father had not followed the parenting-time schedule established in the PPP and exercised

1 The record indicates the parties started the fourth phase by June 2022, within a year of
the move to Minnesota.
4
significantly less than the 50% parenting time called for in the PPP . As relevant here,
mother argued that her motion should be assessed under Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5
(2022), which allows the district court to modify parenting time if it is in the child’s best
interests. Mother also argued in the alternative that, if the district court treated her motion
as a motion for a modification of custody under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d), that she satisfied
the criteria for granting such a change for two reasons: (1) the evidence establishes that the
child “has been integrated into [mother’s] family with [father’s] consent”; and (2) the
child’s “present environment at Father’s and with the parenting schedule endangers” the
child’s safety and development. Mother further argued that the St. Peter school district
would better meet the child’s educational needs than his current school in Savage. Father
opposed the motion and disputed mother’s calculation of his exercise of parenting time and
her claims of endangerment and integration of the child into mother’s family.
The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, denied mother’s motion
in its entirety. The district court determined that mother’s request amounted to a request
to modify physical custody of the child governed by Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d), and that
mother failed to make a prima facie showing to justify the modification. Specifically, the
district court found that mother failed to make a prima facie showing either that the child
was endangered in father’s care or that the child had been integrated into mother’s family
with father’s consent. The district court also found that it was not in the child’s best
interests to modify the PPP and reduce father’s parenting time.

5
DECISION
Mother asserts two central arguments on appeal. First, mother argues that the
district court made insufficient best-interests findings under Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5.
She maintains that the district court denied the motion simply because she sought a change
in the provisions of the PPP without considering all relevant factors, such as mother’s
interest in moving to St. Peter to be closer to her family so that they could assist her in
caring for the many needs of the child. Second, she argues that the district court erred in
determining that her motion should be construed as a motion to modify custody or a
parenting-plan provision specifying the child’s residence under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d).
She maintains that she and father avoided using any labels in the PPP such as joint custody
or primary residence and that the district court improperly superimposed these labels by
treating the motion as one for custody modification under the standards of Minn. Stat.
§ 518.18(d). Mother also argues that, because of work demands, father did not adhere to
the 50-50 parenting time schedule in the PPP until very recently, after she filed her motion
for approval of the changes in schedule, residence, and school.
We address first mother’s argument that the district court made insufficient findings
on the best interests of the child. A determination that a “modification would serve the
best interests of the child” is a prerequisite to “modify[ing] the decision-making provisions
of a parenting plan or an order granting or denying parenting time.” Minn. Stat. § 518.175,
subd. 5(b). The best interests of the child is the “ultimate issue” in parenting-time disputes.
Hagen v. Schirmers, 783 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Minn. App. 2010).
6
“Appellate courts recognize that a district court has broad discretion to decide
parenting-time questions, and will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district
court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact that are
not supported by the record.” Suleski v. Rupe , 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn. App. 2014)
(citations omitted). 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, and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. In re
Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021); 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). “[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.” Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 222 (quotations omitted); see Vangsness
v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472, 474 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing clear-error
standard of review).
When a district court is considering a motion to modify parenting time, rather than
establishing a parenting-time schedule in the first instance, the court is not required to make
“detailed, specific findings” on each of the best-interests factors enumerated in Minn. Stat.
§ 518.17 (2022). See Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 597-99 (Minn. 2018). Instead,
the district court must “consider only the relevant best-interests factors” and “make
sufficient findings to enable appellate review.” Id. at 597 & n.2.
Mother argues that the district court did not actually analyze the best-interests
factors but merely denied the motion because the modifications were contrary to the
7
parties’ PPP. We disagree. While the district court found that mother’s requests were
contrary to the provisions of the PPP, the district court also found that the modifications
sought by mother were not in the child’s best interests because a significant reduction of
father’s parenting time would interfere with consistency and stability in the child’s current
routines and negatively impact his growth and development.
The district court’s best-interests findings include the court’s findings “that both
Mother and Father care deeply for [the child] and his well-being . . . [and] that both Mother
and Father meet his needs, as great as they are.” Additionally, the district court recognized
that both parties had developed strong support systems surrounding their relationship with
the child, observing: “Mother and her extended family have developed a wonderful
relationship with [the child]; and Father has found a community of people, including other
children with [the child’s type of special needs], that have readily accepted [the child] as
one of their own.” The district court noted that “one of Mother’s primary concerns is the
consistency and stability of [the child’s] schedule” and that “[d]epriving [the child] of
further interaction and routines with his Father is antithetical to those stated concerns.”
The district court commented: “Both Father and Mother expound frequently on their
respective routines with [the child] and how that helps him on his developmental journey.
Restricting one side of this relationship could seriously impact [the child’s] growth and
development.” The district court concluded that “[i]t is not in [the child’s] best interests
for Mother to restrict Father’s parenting time and move [the child’s] primary residence to
Saint Peter, Minnesota.”
8
These findings reflect that the district court considered the child’s needs, the ability
of each parent to meet those needs, the benefits to the child and his development in
maximizing time with both parents, and the effect the proposed modification would have
on the community and support system each parent has established, which are all best-
interests factors enumerated in the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a). The
district court did not expressly consider the benefit to the child in enrolling in the St. Peter
school district, but that request is inextricably intertwined with mother’s request to modify
the parenting-time schedule and move the child to St. Peter. Mother has not suggested that
it would be plausible to enroll the child in school in St. Peter without also modifying the
parenting-time schedule, and it appears self-evident that having the child spend two hours
being transported to and from school to accommodate father’s parenting time would not be
in the child’s best interests. Given the district court’s emphasis on the benefit to the child
of maximizing time with each parent and its finding that each parent is willing to and does
meet the child’s needs, the district court’s lack of a specific finding on the alleged benefit
offered by the St. Peter school district does not undermine the ultimate best-interests
determination.
Mother argues that the district court’s finding that parenting time was roughly equal
is inaccurate because mother had more than half of the parenting time based on the
graduated “nesting” schedule in the PPP and the times that mother cared for the child
because of father’s work conflicts. Mother thus maintains that her proposed modification
to father’s parenting time would not be that significant. Mother concedes, however, that
at least since she filed her motion, father has been caring for the child according to the 50-
9
50 schedule. Based on the evidence in the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s de termination that a reduction in father’s parenting time to every other
weekend would not be in the child’s best interests.
Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s best-interests
determination, mother is not entitled to a reversal of the district court’s ruling on her motion
regardless of whether her motion is construed as a motion for modification of custody
under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) or for a modification of parenting time under Minn. Stat.
§ 518.175, subd. 5. Both statutes require that the proposed changes be in the child’s best
interests. Consequently, we need not address mother’s argument that the district court
erred in construing her motion as a motion to modify custody under Minn. Stat.
§ 518.18(d).
Affirmed.