Cited by

d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985).

An appellate court’s review “is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”

“When a district court is deciding a custody dispute, a child’s best interests is the court’s ‘paramount commitment.’” ( (stating that “[t]he guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest[s] of the child”).

“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interests of child.”

“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interests of child.”

“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest[s] of child.”

“Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion.”

“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.”

.” see also Hansen v. Todnem , (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to modifications of parenting time).

He argues that the court’s analysis was deficient because it failed to make 11 detailed findings as to each parent’s role in preparing the children’s meals, bathing them, addressing their medical care, disciplining them, and the various other indicators of a

Our “review of custody determinations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion[.]”

Our “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.” Pikula v. Pikula

5 “The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child,” and a court’s “paramount commitment” is to that best interests.

2 DECISION “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.”

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

Accordingly, our review “is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.”

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

needed insight in particular cases.”

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

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

“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.” Pikula v. Pikula

(“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 257C.04, subd.

“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child,” and a court’s “paramount commitment” is to that best interest

We will sustain factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and defer to the district court’s assessment of witness credibility

The Custody Determination “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.”

to support his argument that the district court must explain its reasons for disagreeing with an expert’s conclusions.

“The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.”

5 improperly applying the law.”

and Rutten v. 2 Mother also maintains, correctly, that we apply a de novo standard of review when asked to interpret a stipulation or order.

We will sustain factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we defer to the district court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility