Cited by

See Grein v. Grein , (declining to 13 remand a child-custody matter when “the files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings, [show that] on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result).

(refusing to remand for missing findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language”); WL 3099039, at *4 n.3 (Minn.

(refusing to remand for missing findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the trial court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language”).

(affirming district court when, from the files, record, and the findings the district court did make, the appellate court discerned that the district court, on remand, “would undoubtedly” reach the same result).

(refusing to remand child-custody case when “on remand, the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result).

(concluding that district court may rely on court files to discern history in connection with modification of custody).

(“taking cognizance of” the district court’s action attempting to reduce damages after appeal commenced “for the insight it affords” and ordering a reduction in damages), rev. denied (Minn. June 12, 1984); (affirming district court where—from the files, record, and court’s findings, the court on remand “would undoubtedly” reach the same result).

Grein v. Grein , (refusing to remand when doing so would not change the result); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason).

(refusing to remand for missing findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’ s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language”); n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (

(declining to remand a custody-modification determination for further findings when “on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result); Minn. R. Civ.

(declining to remand a custody-modification determination for further findings when “on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result); Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be 17 ignored); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason); (refusing to remand when doing so would not change the result).

(refusing to remand for missing findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language”); n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (apply

And “we will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.” Katz, d at 839; (declining to remand a child-custody matter when “the files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings, [show that] on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result).

(declining to remand and affirming the district court in a child-custody case in which “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result).

(avoiding remanding case to district court to make specific findings when “it seems clear from reading the files, the record, and the court ’s 10 findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language.”).

P. 61 (requiring courts to ignore harmless error); (refusing to remand when doing so would not change the result).

P. 61 (requiring courts to ignore harmless error); (concluding that remand was unnecessary where the district court would ultimately reach the same result).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error be ignored); (declining to remand in a child -custody case when “from reading the files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that” reach the same result).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored) ; (declining to remand in a child-custody case when “from reading the files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result)

See Grein v. Grein , (declining to remand a case for specific findings mandated by caselaw because “it seems clear from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the trial court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the [law]”).

(declining to remand in a child -custody matter); d 170, 176 (Minn. App. 1997) (refusing to reverse termination of parental rights for harmless error); - 31 (Minn. App. 2022) (citing D.J.N.).

(declining to remand a custody- modification case for further findings when “on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result); Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (declining to remand in a child-custody case when “from reading the files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result)

(declining to remand for missing findings when “on remand the [district] 15 court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the same result); Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring courts to disregard harmless error); (declining to remand when doing so 23 would not change the result); n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (citing Grein and refusing to remand when doing so would be “futile”).

On this record, we are convinced that if we remanded for additional findings of fact regarding father’s parenting time, the result would not change.2 Therefore, any lack of findings specifically addressing 2 (refusing to remand child-custody case when “on remand, the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language” and reach the s ame result); d 915, 920 n.1 (Minn. App. 2005) (refusing to remand issue of custodial parent moving ch

Moreover, we could remand for explicit findings, but the record shows “the trial court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language.”

P. 61 (requiring harmless erro r to be ignored); see also Grein v. Grein , (declining to remand the case to the district court when the district court would undoubtedly make findings satisfying th e statutory language to reach the same result).

See Grein v. Grein , (declining to remand and affirming the district court in a child -custody case when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory langua ge” and reach the same result).

(declining to remand when the record and the district court’s findings demonstrate that on remand the district court “would undoubtedly” make the required findings and reach the same result).

d 383, 387 (Minn. 1985) (refusing to remand for missing findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findi ngs, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport wi th the statutory language”).

(affirming district court’s order where “on re mand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory language”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); see also Grein v. Grein , (declining to remand the case to the district court when the district court would undoubtedly make findings that satisfy the statutory lan guage and reach the same result).

App. 1985); -86 (Minn. 1985) (affirming custody modification when one parent persistently interfered with other parent’s on -duty time and when parent’s “continued suspicious and accusatory nature .

See Grein v. Grein , (declining to re mand custody decision when it was clear from the record that the court would make the same findings and reach the same conclusion); (concluding that even if certain evidence was improperly admitted, the improperly adm

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (declining to remand the case to the district court when it is clear that the district court would undoubte dly make findings that satisfy the statutory language and reach the same result); see also Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd.

(declining to remand and, instead, affirming a custody decision reached by the district court without explanatory findings of fact when “from reading the files, the record, and the court’s findings, on remand the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory lang