Judge Matthew E. Johnson
ORDER OPINION Steele County District Court
File No. 74-FA-14-1540 Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. John Hamilton Thompson and Jennifer Jo Mellum were married in 2001. They have two children: a daughter who now is 17 years old (and almost 18) and a son who now is 14. The parties' marriage was dissolved in 2014 pursuant to a marital termination agreement. The district court awarded both parties joint legal and joint physical custody of their children. The dissolution decree recognized that Mellum might attend graduate school outside Minnesota and provided that, if Mellum were to reside outside the Owatonna school district, where the children attend public schools, the children would reside with Thompson during the school year and with Mellum during summertime and some holidays. The decree also provided that, if either party were to request a substantial change in the parenting-time schedule or a change of the children's primary residence, the district court should apply a best-interests standard. In 2017, the parties stipulated to certain amendments to the parenting-time schedule, which are not directly relevant to this appeal.
2. In August 2019, while residing in Washington state, Mellum served and filed a motion requesting a modification of the parenting-time schedule to require the children to reside primarily with her during the school year and primarily with Thompson during summertime, thereby changing the children's primary residence to Washington. Thompson opposed Mellum's motion and requested an evidentiary hearing, which the district court granted. A court-appointed parenting-time evaluator (PTE) interviewed the parties and the children. The PTE concluded that Mellum's requested change would not be in the best interests of the children, and the PTE recommended that the children remain in Owatonna during the school year and, in addition, reside in Minnesota for an additional week in summertime to accommodate the children's extracurricular activities. In April 2020, Mellum amended her motion with respect to parenting time by limiting it to the parties' son, apparently in recognition of the fact that the parties' daughter was nearing the completion of her secondary education. Mellum requested that the son reside in Washington for six months of each year and Minnesota for six months of each year. In May 2020, Thompson moved for adoption of the PTE's recommendations and for amendment of the standard for future modifications to the parenting-time schedule.
3. In June 2020, the district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing. The district court heard testimony from both parties as well as 12 non-party witnesses, including the PTE. The district court also received approximately 20 exhibits into evidence.
4. In July 2020, the district court filed a 34-page order in which it denied Mellum's motion to modify the parenting-time schedule, granted Thompson's motion to adopt the PTE's recommendations, and granted Thompson's motion to amend the standard for future modifications to the parenting-time schedule.
5. Mellum filed a notice of appeal. She is not represented by an attorney; she is representing herself. In her principal brief, she argues that she should "receive equal physical custody of her son without geographical restrictions." She refers to the best-interests standard, emphasizes the importance of the involvement of a biological parent (especially a biological mother) in a child's care and upbringing, laments the current imbalance in parenting time, suggests that mothers who exercise mobility for professional or personal reasons generally are treated differently than fathers who do so, and questions whether the existing law concerning parenting time is consistent with modern society.
6. Mellum does not specifically state that the district court erred in any particular way and that this court should reverse the district court's decision for that reason. That she did not make such a statement is somewhat understandable because she is not an attorney. In this situation, an appellate court would be justified in concluding that an appellant has forfeited all arguments for reversal. As the supreme court has stated, "An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in [an] appellant's brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." Kaehler v. Kaehler, 18 N.W.2d 312, 313 (Minn. 1945). Nonetheless, this court has read Mellum's brief carefully and attempted to discern any possible argument for reversal. We construe the brief to make a single, general argument that the district court erred by denying her motion and adopting the current parenting-time schedule.
7. "A district court's findings of fact underlying a parenting-time decision will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous." Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 691 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015). In determining whether findings of fact are clearly erroneous, this court views the record in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. Lossing v. Lossing, 403 N.W.2d 688, 690 (Minn. App. 1987). In addition, we defer to the district court's credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01). We will not reverse a parenting-time decision unless the district court abused its broad discretion "by misapplying the law or by relying on findings of fact that are not supported by the record." Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn. App. 2014).
8. The district court made extensive findings of fact about the parenting-time evaluation, the parents' respective homes, the children's emotional needs, the children's academic needs, the children's preferences to continue living in Minnesota during the school year, the children's numerous Minnesota-based activities, and other issues. The district court's findings of fact are detailed and thorough, and it is apparent that the district court gave careful attention to all of the voluminous evidence and had a firm grasp of its nuances. Most importantly, the district court's findings of fact are supported by evidence that was introduced at the evidentiary hearing. In particular, Thompson and the PTE gave testimony that provides ample support for the district court's findings.
9. In addition, the district court properly identified the applicable law. Specifically, the district court applied the best-interests standard to which the parties agreed in 2014. The district court analyzed each of the twelve statutory factors and determined that ten factors favor father's position while two factors are neutral. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518.175, subd. 5(b), .17, subd. l(a)(l)-(12) (2020). The district court's analysis of the statutory factors is consistent with the evidence that the children are healthy and physically active, are thriving in their current schools and activities, have expressed strong preferences to continue attending Owatonna schools and to continue in their chosen activities, and would experience significant disruptions if the modification requested by Mellum were to become reality. Consequently, this is not a case in which "prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." See Kaehler, 18 N.W.2d at 313. To the contrary, we believe that the district court's resolution of the motions is well within the district court's broad discretion and, in addition, is eminently sensible.
10. Thus, the district court did not err by denying Mellum's motion to modify the parenting-time schedule or by granting Thompson's motion to adopt the PTE's recommendations and to amend the standard for future modifications to the parenting-time schedule.
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: May 26, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Matthew E. Johnson
Comments