Cited by

29 In reaching its decision, the district court did not clearly “mak[e] findings unsupported by the evidence,” nor did it “improperly apply[] the law.”

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

d 166, 174 (Minn. 2002).

See, 176 (Minn. 2002) (discussing, and citing cases addressing, this common law presumption).

The “fitness of a parent may not be at issue at all,” but what “may be of concern are extraordinary circumstances such as the special needs of the child that dictate conferring custody on individuals most able to care for the child.”

(holding that district courts have broad discretion in deciding custody matters and appellate review is limited to determining whether the district court abused that discretion); see also Vangsness, d at 472 (holding that this court will uphold a district court’s findings of fact unless t

See, 176 (Minn. 2002) (discussing, and citing cases addressing, this common law presumption).

See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 72-73 (2000) (plurality decision) (holding that a Washington state statute violated the substant ive due process rights of a mother to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her biological children), quoted in - 75 (Minn. 2002).5 This court has held that any presumption in favor of a biological parent, however, can be overcome if the agency establishes that custody with that pa rent is not in the child’s best interests: But the p

He first contends that the district court erred as a matter of law when it did “not discuss at all the strong preference in Minnesota law for blood relationships.” Peacock cites four cases to support his assertion that “[n]atural parents have an absolute right to a relationship with their children, absent ‘grave and weighty reasons.’” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

n.10 (Minn. 2002) (declining to address an issue that was not raised in the district court or in the court of appeals).

A district court abuses its discretion by “making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”

d 166, 174 (Minn. 2002).

This court reviews custody determinations to determine whether the district court “abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly 12 applying the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion to determine matters of custody.”