best-interests factors in Minnesota

2024A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P., 678 N.W.2d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted); see Minn. R.

2023That statute requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P., 678 N.W.2d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted); see Minn. R.

2017The best-interests analysis “consists of weighing three primary factors: the child’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship, the [parent’s] interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship, and any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Children of M.A.H., 839 N.W.2d 730, 744 (Minn. App. 2013).

2016The three primary factors in a best-interests analysis are “the child’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship, the parents’ interest in maintaining the parent- child relationship, and any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of M.A.H., 839 N.W.2d 730, 744 (Minn. App. 2013); see also Minn. R.

2024Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 477 (Minn. App. 2000).

2014And because “there is no articulated, specific standard of law” governing how a district court must weigh the various best-interests factors, there is “scant if any room for an appellate court to question the [district] court’s balancing of best-interests considerations.” Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d at 477 .

2016Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 691 (Minn. App. 2015) (making this observation regarding the 2014 versions of Minn. Stat. § 518.17 , subd. 1, and Minn. Stat. § 518.175 , subd. 5), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015).

2016But when addressing parenting time, section 518.175 “does not require the court to make findings regarding the best-interests factors in Minn. Stat. § 518.17 , subd. 1(a), which addresses custody, rather than parenting time.” Newstrand, 869 N.W.2d at 691 .

2008See C.H., 554 N.W.2d at 743 .

2008See C.H., 554 N.W.2d at 743 .

2019A best-interests analysis involves balancing three factors: "(1) the child's interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent's interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child." Id. (quotation omitted).

2016Best-interests analysis L.S. argues that the best interests of her children are not served by terminating her parental rights while retaining the parental rights of their fathers.1 “We review a district court’s ultimate determination that termination is in a child’s best interest[s] for an abuse of discretion.” J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 905 .

2026“A district court abuses ‘its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Id. (quoting Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985)).

1998We conclude that, because of the similarities in the parental termination and probate statutes, the previous application of the probate code’s guardian-removal criteria to the *589 removal of a guardian ad litem, and the overall prevailing best interests of the child standard that governs all actions regarding a court’s child custody determinations, Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 711 , it is appropriate to apply the best-interests standard to a petition to remove the guardian of child.

2026Mother challenges the district court’s decision to award third-party custody to the Norgaards, contending (1) the district court improperly found that the Norgaards are interested third parties, and (2) the district court erred in weighing the best-interests factors. 5 “This court’s review of a district court’s third-party custody determination is limited to whether the court abused its discretion.” In re Custody of A.L.R., 830 N.W.2d 163, 166 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing Lewis-Miller v. Ross, 710 N.W.2d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006)).

2026Mother challenges the district court’s decision to award third-party custody to the Norgaards, contending (1) the district court improperly found that the Norgaards are interested third parties, and (2) the district court erred in weighing the best-interests factors. 5 “This court’s review of a district court’s third-party custody determination is limited to whether the court abused its discretion.” In re Custody of A.L.R., 830 N.W.2d 163, 166 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing Lewis-Miller v. Ross, 710 N.W.2d 565, 568 (Minn. 2006)).

2026“A district court abuses ‘its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.’” Id. (quoting Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985)).

2026See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court).

2025Wilson v. Moline, 47 N.W.2d 865, 870 (Minn. 1951) (stating that function of appellate court is not to “discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings” and that “[o]ur duty is performed when we consider all the evidence, as we have done here, and conclude that it reasonably supports the findings.”).

2024A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R.

2024See Veit v. Veit, 413 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Minn. App. 1987) (rejecting the argument that the parties were unable to cooperate “on any level” because evidence supported the district court’s “finding [that] the parties’ inability to cooperate was of relatively recent origin”); Berthiaume v. Berthiaume, 368 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn. App. 1985) (determining that evidence supported the district court’s finding, “in spite of current conflict,” that “the parties would be able to cooperate as necessary after the custody issue was put to rest”); Schultz v. Schultz, 358 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 1984) (af

2024See Veit v. Veit, 413 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Minn. App. 1987) (rejecting the argument that the parties were unable to cooperate “on any level” because evidence supported the district court’s “finding [that] the parties’ inability to cooperate was of relatively recent origin”); Berthiaume v. Berthiaume, 368 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn. App. 1985) (determining that evidence supported the district court’s finding, “in spite of current conflict,” that “the parties would be able to cooperate as necessary after the custody issue was put to rest”); Schultz v. Schultz, 358 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 1984) (af

2024See Veit v. Veit, 413 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Minn. App. 1987) (rejecting the argument that the parties were unable to cooperate “on any level” because evidence supported the district court’s “finding [that] the parties’ inability to cooperate was of relatively recent origin”); Berthiaume v. Berthiaume, 368 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn. App. 1985) (determining that evidence supported the district court’s finding, “in spite of current conflict,” that “the parties would be able to cooperate as necessary after the custody issue was put to rest”); Schultz v. Schultz, 358 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 1984) (af

2023See Rohmiller, 811 N.W.2d at 595 (considering aunt’s equitable argument for visitation after rejecting her statutory argument for visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08). “[I]n order to afford due deference to the fit custodial parent, the burden of proof must be on the party seeking visitation, and the standard of proof must be clear and convincing evidence.” SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815, 823 (Minn. 2007) (considering parent’s former domestic partner’s petition for visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08). 6 On appeal, grandfather challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 2020 peti

2023In re Welfare of Brown, 296 N.W.2d 430, 433, 435 (Minn. 1980) (stating that the psychologist’s report of the child’s emotional condition was admissible as a business record, and that the social worker, who kept the report in her file, as part of her business practice, was a proper foundational witness); In re Welfare of J.K., 374 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “reports of social workers and psychologists are admissible as business records”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 1985). 30 A best-interests analysis is expressly governed by Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7.

2023In re Welfare of Brown, 296 N.W.2d 430, 433, 435 (Minn. 1980) (stating that the psychologist’s report of the child’s emotional condition was admissible as a business record, and that the social worker, who kept the report in her file, as part of her business practice, was a proper foundational witness); In re Welfare of J.K., 374 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “reports of social workers and psychologists are admissible as business records”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 1985). 30 A best-interests analysis is expressly governed by Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7.

2023In re Welfare of Brown, 296 N.W.2d 430, 433, 435 (Minn. 1980) (stating that the psychologist’s report of the child’s emotional condition was admissible as a business record, and that the social worker, who kept the report in her file, as part of her business practice, was a proper foundational witness); In re Welfare of J.K., 374 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “reports of social workers and psychologists are admissible as business records”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 1985). 30 A best-interests analysis is expressly governed by Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7.

2023In re Welfare of Brown, 296 N.W.2d 430, 433, 435 (Minn. 1980) (stating that the psychologist’s report of the child’s emotional condition was admissible as a business record, and that the social worker, who kept the report in her file, as part of her business practice, was a proper foundational witness); In re Welfare of J.K., 374 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “reports of social workers and psychologists are admissible as business records”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 1985). 30 A best-interests analysis is expressly governed by Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7.

2023See Rohmiller, 811 N.W.2d at 595 (considering aunt’s equitable argument for visitation after rejecting her statutory argument for visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08). “[I]n order to afford due deference to the fit custodial parent, the burden of proof must be on the party seeking visitation, and the standard of proof must be clear and convincing evidence.” SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815, 823 (Minn. 2007) (considering parent’s former domestic partner’s petition for visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08). 6 On appeal, grandfather challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 2020 peti

2018See Schallinger , 699 N.W.2d at 19 ; C.M.G. , 516 N.W.2d at 560 .

2018See In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W. , 767 N.W.2d 723 , 731 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that determining a child's best interests involves consideration of "the child's unique circumstances and individual needs," citing multiple statutory standards on best interests).

2017See Suleski, 855 N.W.2d at 337 (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the modification *77 of parenting time was in the child’s best interests.”).

2016In Kremer v. Kremer, 827 N.W.2d 454, 458 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2013), the father challenged the district court’s custody determination, arguing that the district court failed to address all of the best-interests factors under Minn. Stat. § 518.17 , subd. 1(a).

2016Id.

2016A district court’s decision receives considerable deference because “[it] is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996).

2016In re Welfare of Child of A.H., 879 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn. App. 2016).