Opinion
A20-1215
07-29-2021
In Re the Custody of H. E. B.: Justin Matthew Brower, petitioner, Respondent, v. Alicia Jennifer Adams, Appellant.
ORDER OPINION
Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-FA-18-523 Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Johnson, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this child-custody-modification dispute, appellant-mother Alicia Adams argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent-father Justin Brower sole legal and sole physical custody of their minor child H.E.B.
2. Mother and father, who were in a relationship, separated in 2018. Father then filed a petition for custody and parenting time. Additionally, father filed an ex parte motion seeking temporary sole legal and temporary sole physical custody of H.E.B. His motion requested supervised parenting time for mother.
3. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and issued a temporary order awarding both parents temporary joint legal and temporary joint physical custody of H.E.B.
4. Soon after, father filed an emergency motion seeking temporary sole physical and temporary sole legal custody of H.E.B. Father also requested that mother's parenting time be temporarily suspended. On November 16, 2018, the district court found that mother's conduct endangered the emotional development of H.E.B. and granted father's requests.
5. After a hearing, which included input from the GAL, the district court issued an order on December 3, 2018, granting father temporary sole legal and temporary sole physical custody. The district court also awarded mother temporary parenting time that was supervised.
6. On May 22, 2019, father filed another emergency motion requesting suspension of mother's parenting time. Father advised the district court that the agency supervising mother's parenting time had terminated its services to mother based on her conduct during parenting time. Following a pretrial hearing where the motion was discussed, the district court left its earlier order in place. Because no agency would agree to provide supervised or therapeutic parenting time to the family—in part, due to mother's failure to complete a psychological evaluation—mother did not have parenting time for months. Mother's supervised parenting time resumed, pursuant to an interim parenting time order of the district court, in March 2020.
7. In November 2019 and March 2020, the district court presided over a court trial for an initial determination of custody and parenting time. Both mother and father were represented by counsel at trial. Multiple witnesses testified, including the GAL, father, mother, and mother's expert witness. The district court received over 100 exhibits by stipulation.
8. On July 27, 2020, the district court issued an order awarding father sole legal custody and sole physical custody of H.E.B. Mother was awarded supervised parenting time for two hours twice per week.
9. Mother, who is self-represented on appeal, challenges the district court's order, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by improperly evaluating the evidence, making "clearly erroneous judgments and rulings," and prejudging the merits of the case. Father did not file a response in the appeal.
10. District courts have broad discretion on matters of custody and parenting time. See Thornton v. Bosquez, 933 N.W.2d 781, 790 (Minn. 2019). 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." In re Custody of N.A.K., 649 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Minn. 2002).
11. The controlling principle in a child-custody determination is that the decision should reflect the best interests of the child. Schallinger v. Schallinger, 699 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2005). In making its determination, the district court must consider all relevant factors, including 12 statutorily enumerated factors. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2020). The statute requires the district court to "make detailed findings on each of the factors . . . based on the evidence presented and explain how each factor led to its conclusions and to the determination of custody and parenting time." Id., subd. 1(b)(1) (2020). The law "leaves scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court's balancing of best-interests considerations." Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).
12. We have carefully reviewed the district court's order and the record of the proceedings in the district court, including the trial.
13. The district court's order, which is 45 pages long, is exceptionally thorough. The district court made detailed factual findings, which included its credibility determinations, and addressed each of the statutory best-interests factors in depth.
14. An appellate court is not required "to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court's findings"; rather, the court's "duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence . . . and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings." Wilson v. Moline, 47 N.W.2d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951); see Cook v. Arimitsu, 907 N.W.2d 233, 240 n.3 (Minn. App. 2018) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family-law appeal), review denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2018); Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 353, 357-58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same).
15. Based on our review of the district court's order and the record, we are satisfied that the evidence amply supports the district court's factual findings.
16. Moreover, the district court's order reflects a thorough and thoughtful consideration of all 12 statutory best-interests factors and makes clear that the district court's award of custody was made to serve H.E.B.'s best interests. We will not reweigh or rebalance the statutory best-interests factors. See Rutanen v. Olson, 475 N.W.2d 100, 104 (Minn. App. 1991) (deferring to district court's custody determination because district court thoroughly considered all best-interests factors consistent with the statutory requirement).
17. Because the district court made factual findings that are supported by the record, carefully considered the statutory best-interests factors, and based its ultimate decisions regarding custody and parenting time on H.E.B.'s best interests, we see no abuse of discretion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: 7/29/2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Theodora Gaïtas