Cited by

“A change in circumstances must be significant and must have occurred since the original custody order; it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.”

On the f irst requirement, the district court found that “there have been major changes in circumstances.” To support modification, a “change in circumstances must be significant and must have occurred since the original custody order; it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.”

1(a) (2024) (noting that a best-interest analysis is conducted “for purposes of determining issues of custody”); (explaining that the best-interests factors enumerated in statute are the second required finding when deciding whether to modify custody).

“[T]he danger may be purely to emotional development.”

A. Change in Circumstances The first factor requires the district court to find that a “significant” change of circumstances has “occurred since the original custody order.” d 774, 778 (Minn. App. 1997).

(explaining that the best-interests factors enumerated in this statute are the second required finding when deciding whether to modify custody).

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2022)

Although the district court “must accept the facts in the moving party’s affidavits as true, and the allegations do not need independent substantiation,” the district court “may consider evidence from sources other than the moving party ’s affidavits in making its [prima facie case] determination.” see also Boland, d at 183 11 n.2 (stating that affidavits of the moving and the nonmoving party refer not just “to the affidavits signed by the parties themselves, but to all affidavits submitted by a

6 I. Change in Circumstances A change in circumstances under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) “must be significant and must have occurred since the original custody order; it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.”

Id.; (explaining that “the court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegations” if the movant’s asserted facts establish a prima facie case for custody modification).

Furthermore, while it is well established th at a teenaged child’s preference is highly relevant to a claim of potential emotional endangerment, such endangerment must be “significant.”

(noting that a “single incident of borderline abuse” did not establish endangerment) .

e with the district court that father’s affidavit did not allege sufficient facts to allow the district court to make 5 the required findings on the third element of the prima facie case—that the children’s physical or emotional health or emotional development is presently endangered in mother’s care.1 Endangerment requires a showing of a “significant degree of danger.” (quotation omitted).

And “it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.” , 778 (Minn. App. 1997).

“Endangerment requires a showing of a significant degree of danger, but the danger may be purely to emotional development.” (quotation and citation omitted).

“Endangerment requires a showing of a ‘significant degree of danger.’” (citation omitted).

See Geibe v. Geibe , (holding that a “single incident of borderline abuse” did not establish endangerment).

(d)(iv); Crowley v. Meyer , Geibe v. Geibe

(holding that “alleged single incident of borderline abuse or neglect” is insufficient showing of endangerment to support custody modification).

(observing that “balance of harms” may be implicit in other factors).

1(a)(3); see also In re Santoro , (“[District] courts have considered the preferences of children as young as 11 years old in determining visitation.”); Geibe v. Geibe , (“Where the child is a teenager, Minnesota courts have taken preferences into account.”).

(quotation and citation omitted).

“A change in circumstances must be significant and must have occurred since the original custody order; it cannot be a continuation of conditions existing prior to the order.”

See, 779-80 (Minn. App. 1997).