Cited by

12, 1990) ; see also LaChapelle v. Mitten , (stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its 2 Furthermore, the guidelines appellants point to are at best interpretative rules that “do not have the force and effect of law.” See Perez v. Mortg.

LaChapelle v. Mitten , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

In an initial custody proceeding, a parent proposing a change of residence need not prove the move is in the child’s best interests; the district court simply “treats a proposed change of residence by a party as one factor to balance in determining custody of a child.” LaChappelle v. Mitten , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The decision to establish statutes of limitations is for the legislature; this court “is limited in its function to correcting errors [and] it cannot create public policy.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

d 151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

See, d 151, 163-64 (Minn. App. 2000) (holding that the best interests of a child was a compelling state interest justifying infringement on a mother’s fundamental right to travel), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (holding that the best interests of the children took prec

Thomas, 2017 WL 163712, at *5 (declining to require a jury instruction concerning cross -racial eyewitness identification when the supreme court has not end orsed such an instruction); (“[T]his court is limited in its function to correcting errors .

review denied (Minn. 2000).

(“We defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

We have previously found that when a child was known by her current name for six years it was “long enough for the child to have developed a sense of identity through her name.” d 151, 167 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Saxton, d at 302 (noting due deference is given to the fact that the child has borne a given surname for an extended period of time)), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the

(stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), reviewed denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Moreover, “this court is limited in its function to correcting errors [and] it cannot create public policy.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

planation, the district court appears to have awarded 1 The district court found that the terms of the 1992 dissolution decree obligated each party to sell their respective property within a “reasonable time.” Although the terms of the decree allow for other interpretations of the district court’s intent, “[w]e defer to a district court’s interpretation of its own order,” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Credit Union, (stating that “[t]his court, as an error correcting court, is without authority to change the law”), review denied (Minn. June 17, 1998); (stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors[,] it cannot create public policy”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

And “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(affirming a district court’s award of joint legal custody notwithstanding “evidence in the record of the parties’ inability to cooperate” when the record also contained evidence that the parties “are willing to try to cooperate” and where “there are methods in place for resolving disputes t

Appellant asserts that “[i]t should not matter, as a matter of policy, whether the comparative fault is that of the plaintiff or, as in this case, that of a co-defendant.” But “[bjecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The Saxton factors are: “(1) how long the child has had the current name; (2) any potential harassment or embarrassment the change might cause; (3) the child’s preference; (4) the effect of the change on the child’s relationship with each parent; and (5) the degree of community respect associated with the present and proposed names.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000) (citing Saxton, d at 301 ).

(stating that “[b]e-cause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The district court’s reference to "the LaChapelle locale restriction” (upholding an award of physical custody conditioned on the custodian residing in the state), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

162—63 (Minn.App.2000) (permitting custody award conditioned on parent’s continuing residence in state), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

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), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

While a “general freedom from governmental intrusion in child-rearing decisions” and a “right to familial privacy” that is “not absolute” have been recognized, review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), here, those rights and freedoms conflict with the child’s paramount right to support and the public protection of the child’s best interests.