Cited by

The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

The mere fact that “the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”

The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best- interests considerations.”

Commitment of Kenney, -75 (Minn. App. 2000) (applying clear -error principles in dissolution context).

at 222; (discussing clear-error standard of review).

Kenney, d at 222; (discussing clear-error standard of review).

Commitment of Kenney, -22 (Minn. 2021) (discussing clear error standard of review); (same).

(“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”).

at 222; J.H., d at 601 n.6 (applying these aspects of Kenney on appeal in a juvenile-protection case); (discussing clear-error standard of review).

And we have recognized that there is “scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best - interests considerations.”

at 222 (quotations omitted); (discussing clear error standard of review).

Best Interests of the Child “A child’s best interests are the fundamental focus of custody decisions.”

A district court’s “finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

(making this statement in the context of a custody dispute in a dissolution hearing).

There is “scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

See Thiele v. Stich , (noting that, on appeal, an appellant ca nnot use a new theory to argue an issue that was presented to the district court); Vangsness v. Vangsness , - 78 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing this aspect of Thiele in a family law case).

The law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).

“A child’s best interests are the fundamental focus of custody decisions.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

A finding is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Vangsness v. Vangsness , (holding that there is “scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations”).

In other words, clear error exists “if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 6 been made.” (quotation omitted).

-83 (Minn. 1988); (citing Thiele in a family law appeal); see also Minn. R. Civ.

Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”) .

d 468, 474 (Minn. App. 2000).

A CSM is afforded broad discretion in making child-support determinations, and we defer to the CSM’s credibility determinations

(noting that a district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the defin ite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, and that, when addressi ng whether a district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, an appellate court both “vi

Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the [trial] court’s findings are defective.”); ( recognizing that complainant has duty to show that district court erred in fa

(rejecting argument that mother “should have been given more credit” in balancing of best -interests factors).

(“[T]he mere existence of evidence that could su pport findings other than those made by the trial court does not render these findings defective.”).

“That the reco rd might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

We view “the record in the light most fa vorable to the [district] court’ s findings.”

the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”

.W.2d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009) (“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court's decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); see also Sefkow, d at 210 (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); Vangsness v. Vangsness , (noting “[t]hat the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the [

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and defers to the district court’s credibility determinations, Gada v. Dedefo , 684 N.W.

11 those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”

Appellate courts review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and reversing only if the reco rd “requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and defers to the district court’s credibility determinations, , 210 (Minn. 1988)

the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.”