Cited by

“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.”

“When determining whether findings are clearly erron eous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).

A district court’s f actual finding is clearly erroneous “if 5 the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , (quotations omitted).

See Arundel v. Arundel , d 663, 667 (Minn. 1979); (M inn.

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

llenging the findings must show that despite viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings (and accounting for an appellate court’s deference to a trial court’s credibility determinations and its inability to resolve conflicts in the evidence), the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, [appellate courts] view[] the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”

See Foster v. Foster , (“[W]e are not permitted to reweigh the evidence when reviewing a district court’s decision 17 to determine whether the court abused its discretion.”); (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”).

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

Given that caselaw “leaves scant if any room” for us to question the district court’s balancing of the best-interest factors, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that T.R.’s best interests favored adoptive placement with his foster parents and not with his grandmother.

And “appellate courts defer to [district] court credibility determinations.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

27, 2019); see also Vangsness v. Vangsness , .

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

Vangsness v. Vangsness , 474 (Minn. App. 2000).

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

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Vangsness v. Vangsness , d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000).

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

See Vangsness v. Vangsness , (rejecting best -interests argument proffered by spouse in custody dispute , recognizing that it is not the role of an appellate court to reconcile conflicting evidence).

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.”

A finding is “clearly erroneous” when this court has “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

Instead, “[t]he [district] court’s determination of the ultimate best -interests issue will be affirmed unless it constitutes an abuse of the [district] court’s discretion or the [district] court rationale suggests an erroneous application of law.” 6 Moreover, i n Kropp, for the principle that the application of statutory criteria to facts found is reviewed de novo.

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

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

“When determining whether [factual] findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” Vangsness v. Vangsness , and reverses only if it “is left with the definite and f irm conviction that a mistake has been made,” Goldman, d at 284 (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most 7 favorable to the district court’ s findings and reversing only i f the record “requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness

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

D E C I S I O N The standard of review for custody determinations is abuse of discre tion, and the law “leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.”

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

Though appellants point to plausible alternative findings, the assertion that “the record might support findings other than those made by the [district] court does not show that the court’s findings are defective.” see In re Welfare of Child of J.L.L.

Vangsness v. Vangsness , , 476-77 (Minn. App. 2000).