Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz, 438 N.W.2d 687.

56 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In the Matter of: Maria Cristina Gallo-Valdivia, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: N. S. and C. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
hild’s development.”); (stating that a district court may deny modification if the parties’ affidavits “do not satisfactorily establish, on a preliminary basis, that there has occurred a significant change in circumstances which endangers the child’s physical or emotional health or emotional development”); (stating that the court must find that the change of circumstances endangers the children in addition to finding that appellant established a change of circumstances), rev. denied (Minn. June
In re the Marriage of: Leann Rae Hinrichs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
insufficient to support a prima facie case, such as allegations not “supported by any specific, credible evidence.” Szarzynski, d at 292 (quotation omitted).4 The district court reasoned that a change in circumstances “is measured in relation to the circumstances that existed at the time of the prior custody order ,” citing Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2018) rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Custody of: B. L. F., Cherries Chamberlain, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(affirming denial of custody -modification motion based on children’s move to mother’s house, as ordered, because it was not a “meaningful change” ), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But it should rely on the child’s preference “when the court is convinced that it is not the product of manipulation by the non-custodial parent.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989)
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) (2018) (requiring modification of custody to be based on facts “that have arisen since the prior [custody] order”); see also Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz , (stating that change of circumstances to support custody modification must be more than continuation of problems), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Brett William Leschinsky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Any alleged change in circumstance “must be a real change an d not a continuation of ongoing problems,” and the change “must be significant.” Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz , review denied (Minn. Jun.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
T here must be a real change and not a c review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Rebekah Lynn Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, a child’s preference should generally be “given weight to the extent that it might bear on the child’s emotional well-being.” d 687, 691 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Ann Hughes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Robert Repp, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Roehrdanz v. 5 Roehrdanz, review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. Joseph Francis D'Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-92 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darick Joseph Waguespack v. Jocelyn Alicia Merz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Vance Aaron Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Even if this court were to find that [petitioner] established a sufficient change of circumstance, we would also have to find that the change in circumstances endangers the [child’s] physical or emotional health or development.”).
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier 852 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Additionally, there “must be a real change and not a continuation of ongoing problems.” review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Griese v. Kamp 666 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. June 21,1989).
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Weber 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Dalbec v. W.P.W. 653 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sharp v. Bilbro 614 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating “[t]he change of circumstances must be a real change and not a continuation of ongoing problems”), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Petition of Santoro 578 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-91 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. June 21,1989).
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Geibe v. Geibe 571 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Emerick on Behalf of Howley v. Sanchez 547 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Emerick on Behalf of Howley v. Sanchez 547 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-92 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989).
Case v. Case 516 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Case v. Case 516 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-92 (Minn.App.1989) (award of attorney fees on appeal under Minn.Stat.
Rogge v. Rogge 509 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogge v. Rogge 509 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(custodial preference is but one factor among many that a court uses to assess the best interests of a child), pet.
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Dabrowski v. Dabrowski 477 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Ross v. Ross 477 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(allegations of emotional abuse of children by custodial parent’s spouse warranted hearing); (hearing required to investigate allegations of abuse, fear of the custodial parent and changes in the children’s attitude and behavior); (denial of evidentiary hearing upheld where affidavits did not allege evidence of abuse or problems in school or with peers that might be attributable to the living situation), pet.
Marriage of Dabrowski v. Dabrowski 477 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
§ 518.14; (respondent awarded $4,000 in attorney’s fees on appeal where appellant’s custody challenge was so specious and unfounded as to constitute harassment), pet.