Cited by

In Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, for example, we held that “lack of endangerment is fatal to a motion to modify custody.” (describing endangerment as a “threshold” for modifying custody).

does not establish danger to the welfare of children without evidence of actual adverse effects.” Dabill v. Dabill , -96 (Minn. App. 1994).

See Harkema, d at 14; Taflin, d at 321 (concluding district court abused its discretion by denying motion to modify custody without evidentiary hearing when father’s affidavit made prima facie showing of endangerment); (reversing district court’s child-custody modification when evidence did not show endangerment).

central and concerning in its review” and that “multiple qualified professionals and the Court have expressed concern over source monitoring.” The district court took judicial notice of factual findings from its October 2020 custody order (first custody order) that father and grandparents have created a source monitoring problem for the child “due to the 7 stands for the proposition that a finding of endangerment requires “actual adverse effects to the child as a result of the parenting time.” B

” - 96 (Minn. App. 1994) .

This court has stated that “to establish danger to a child’s welfare, a parent’s conduct must be shown to result in an actual adverse effect on the child.” –96 (Minn. App. 1994) (“Normally, given the statutory requirement for proof of endangerment as a condition for a custody modification, the conduct or circumstance of a parent, including visitation interference, does not establish danger to the welfare of children without evidence of actual adverse effects.”).

to support her contention that establishing endangerment requires a showing that a custodial parent’s conduct “must be shown to have an actual, adverse effect on the child” and that “[u]nwarranted denial of or interference with visitation alone is not enough to modify custody.” Stancek reads Dab

(describing endangerment as “threshold” for modifying custody).

26, 2000), a denial of, or interference with, visitatióh is not controlling in custody-modification proceedings, but must be considered along with other factors, and argues that visitation problems should not preclude removal.

597 n. 3 (Minn.App.1994).