In re the Marriage of: Tiffany Ann Sammartino v. Salverio Vincenzo Sammartino

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1648

In re the Marriage of:

Tiffany Ann Sammartino, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Salverio Vincenzo Sammartino,
Respondent.

Filed September 8, 2026
Affirmed
Larson, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-FA-20-908

Christa Groshek, Freya Vieira, Sophina Larson, Groshek Law, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Andrew J. Laufers, Laufers Legal Services, Lake Elmo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larson, Judge; and Beane, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Appellant Tiffany Ann Sammartino (mother) challenges a district court order
expanding respondent Salverio Vincenzo Sammartino’s (father) parenting time. Because
we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

2
FACTS
In 2020, after eight years of marriage and the birth of two children (the children),
mother petitioned to dissolve the parties’ marriage.1 In May 2021, the parties stipulated
that mother had sole legal and sole physical custody of the children, subject to father’s
supervised parenting time, and the district court filed an order accordingly. The order also
provided that upon father’s request, the parties must attempt to modify father’s parenting
time through mediation—“including allowing unsupervised parenting time”—after he
completed an outpatient treatment program (treatment requirement). The treatment
requirement related to father’s “sexually deviant behavior” and difficulty controlling his
sexual impulses.2
Father completed the treatment requirement in late 2023, and in early 2024, in
accordance with the order, requested the parties enter mediation. The parties participated
in two mediation sessions but failed to agree on a modification of father’s parenting time.
Father moved to modify his parenting time under Minn. Stat. § 518.175 (2024), requesting
a graduated unsupervised parenting-time schedule, including unsupervised overnights.
Mother contested father’s proposed parenting-time schedule and requested that the district
court maintain only supervised parenting time.3

1 The judgment of dissolution was entered on August 18, 2020.
2 Father has never been convicted of a crime, nor has he sexually or physically abused the
children.
3 Mother’s motions also included requests for financial reimbursement for medical,
educational, and extracurricular expenses, which are not at issue in this appeal.

3
In December 2024, the district court temporarily expand ed father’s parenting time
to include additional community-based supervised visits and attendance at extracurricular
activities— but denied father’s motion for unsupervised visits. The district court scheduled
an evidentiary hearing for April 2025.
At the evidentiary hearing, the following witnesses testified: a clinical psychologist
and a therapist from the outpatient treatment program; the executive director of the facility
where father and children had supervised parenting time; father; mother; mother’s mother;
and an expert witness. After the hearing, the district court issued a detailed, 31-page order
that expanded father’s parenting time, slowly moving to unsupervised visits but not
including overnights.4 The order also required father to maintain the children’s vegan diet
and install the Qustudio application—allowing mother to receive reports if father viewed
pornography.
To reach its decision, the district court analyzed all the enumerated best-interest
factors under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2024), and determined the factors
“weigh[ed] in favor of carefully expanding [f]ather’s parenting time, but that expansion
w[ould] not include overnights.” In doing so, the district court found that nine factors
weighed against father’s proposal—which included overnights—and three were neutral.
The district court emphasized the following facts when reaching its decision, none of which
are challenged on appeal:

4 The order provided for five additional supervised visits “to allow the children to acclimate
to the idea of unsupervised visits,” followed by five unsupervised visits from 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. every other Saturday, after which father would have parenting time every other
weekend from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays.

4
• Father sexually assaulted his five-year-old half sister when
he was ten years old.

• In college, father stole women’s underwear from the
laundry room, stores, and an ex-girlfriend.

• During the marriage, one of the children witnessed father
watching a video of a teenage girl in her underwear.

• Father has an attraction to females aged 12 to 15 years old.

• Father successfully completed a three-year outpatient
treatment program.

• Father did not fully disclose his attraction to females aged
12 to 15 years old to his treatment providers.

• After completing the treatment requirement, father failed to
abstain from viewing pornography.

• The children are homeschooled.

• The children have unique medical and educational needs,
including a heart condition, food allergies and sensitivities,
and one child has autism and hyperfixation.

• Father’s residence is not near the children’s school, home,
and community connections, which are long-term and well-
established.

• Both parents desire to be involved in the children’s lives.

• Mother consistently follows the established parenting-time
schedule and encourages the children to celebrate
milestones with father.

The district court also found that father had
not demonstrated an ability to provide an age- appropriate and
safe environment for the children through abstaining from
viewing pornography, being honest with treatment providers
and therapists, and creating a concrete safety plan to address

5
this [c]ourt’s concerns regarding [f]ather having unsupervised
overnight parenting time.

In September 2025, mother requested permission to bring a motion to reconsider,
arguing the district court’s decision was inconsistent with the findings of fact. Mother did
not ask the district court to amend its factual findings. The district court denied mother’s
request.
Mother appeals.
DECISION
Mother argues the district court abused its discretion when it expanded father’s
parenting time. We will not reverse a district court’s parenting-time decision absent an
abuse of discretion. Dahl v. Dahl , 765 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Minn. App. 2009). “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). We review
a district court’s findings of fact applying the clear-error standard of review. Dahl, 765
N.W.2d at 123. When applying the clear-error standard, we cannot reweigh the evidence,
reconcile conflicting evidence, or engage in new fact-finding. In re Civ. Commitment of
Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021); see also Ewald v. Nedrebo, 999 N.W.2d
546, 552 (Minn. App. 2023) (citing Kenney in family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
28, 2024).
A parent can seek to modify an existing parenting-time order under section 518.175,
subdivision 5. Under the statute, the district court must modify a parenting-time order “[i]f

6
modification would serve the best interests of the child” and “would not change the child’s
primary residence.” Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5(b); see also Suleski v. Rupe, 855
N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn. App. 2014) (reinforcing principle that best interests of child
control district court’s decision to grant or deny parenting time). In considering a motion
to modify parenting time, the district court need only consider the relevant best-interests
factors in section 518.17, subdivision 1, and is “not required to make specific and detailed
findings on those factors when considering [the movant’s] modification request.” Hansen
v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2018). There is “scant if any room” for our court
“to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” Vangsness v.
Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).
Mother first argues that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to
articulate the “logical bridge” between the findings and the conclusion when it expanded
father’s parenting time, despite the best-interests factors “uniformly” favoring mother. To
make this argument, mother contends that the district court’s use of the phrase “weighs in
favor of mother” means nine best-interests factors weighed in favor of maintaining the
status quo—only supervised parenting time. But this argument disregards the procedural
posture of the case. Father filed the motion to modify, seeking unsupervised parenting
time both during the day and overnight. Mother opposed his motion and suggested the
parenting-time schedule remain the same. In this context, the district court determined that
factors weighed “in favor of mother”—meaning father (as the movant) was not entitled to
the full relief sought. And that is precisely what occurred. Father did not get the path to
overnights that he requested. Instead, the district court, after carefully making findings on

7
all of the best-interests factors, crafted a parenting-time schedule it deemed to be in the
best interests of the children based upon the record—a slow, careful expansion to
unsupervised parenting time during the day. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(a)
(providing that when addressing parenting time, district court shall “grant such parenting
time on behalf of the child and a parent as will enable the child and the parent to maintain
a child to parent relationship that will be in the best interests of the child”).
Mother argues second that the district court’s decision is against logic and the facts
in the record because the trial testimony “overwhelmingly” supported her position that
father should only have supervised parenting time. Essentially, mother argues that a parent
with father’s history should only have supervised parenting time and a district court per se
abuses its discretion when it awards unsupervised parenting time in this situation. But
mother’s argument asks us to reweigh the evidence and question the district court’s
credibility determinations—which is not our role. See Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 221-22.
Here, the district court issued a detailed, 31-page order based upon its extensive
experience with this family. In doing so, it expressed its serious concerns regarding
father’s behavior. But the district court also made detailed findings about father’s
completion of the treatment requirement, emphasized the needs of the children to have their
father in their lives, and noted that “[a] limited relationship is not the relationship that [the
district court] wants for the parties.” The district court additionally found father credible
regarding his desire to be actively involved in the children’s lives. Ultimately, the district
court concluded that the best-interests factors “weigh[ed] in favor of carefully expanding

8
[f]ather’s parenting time,” so long as the expansion did not include overnights. (Emphasis
added.)
Recognizing that there is limited room for an appellate court “to question the
[district] court’s balancing of [the] best-interests considerations,” Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d
at 477, we refrain from substituting our own judgment given the district court’s superior
position to assess witness credibility and observe the family dynamics firsthand. See In re
Child. of L.A.B., 30 N.W.3d 136, 142 (Minn. App. 2025) (stating, in reviewing parenting-
time modification, “when [we] review[] findings of fact, the review is not to determine
whether the record could support findings other than those made by the district court—it
almost always can”). Accordingly, even if we might have reached a different conclusion
regarding the parameters of father’s parenting time, the district court’s findings are well-
supported, and it did not abuse its discretion in reaching its parenting-time decision.
Affirmed.