Perry W. Nice-Petersen seeks review of an order of the Hennepin County District Court denying his motion for a modification of an original award of child custody made incident to the judgment and decree of marital dissolution of the parties on April 4, 1979. His primary assignment of error is that the trial court failed to schedule an evidentiary hearing to consider the competing positions of the parties. We affirm.

By the terms of the judgment and decree of marital dissolution, the custody of the parties' 3-year-old daughter Nicole was granted to the respondent Pamela Nice-Petersen. The appellant's visitation rights were to be supervised by the Department of Court Services. Although the parties entered into a stipulation governing visitation which was approved by the court, disputes arose thereafter relating to the visitation schedule. On July 7, 1980, the appellant filed a motion with the court for an order granting the parties joint custody of their child. The motion stated that it was "made upon the attached affidavits, upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, and upon the statutes of the State of Minnesota." A hearing was conducted in the district court to consider the parties' motions and the guardian ad litem's motion for an order adopting her recommendation that there be no change in custody. The appellant objected to the inclusion in the record of the guardian's report and respondent's attempt to introduce reports prepared by a psychiatrist and an employee of the Department of Court Services. Appellant therefore moved the court for an evidentiary hearing to allow his cross-examination of the authors of the reports. The order denying the evidentiary hearing and refusing to modify the original custody award is the subject of this appeal.

The focal question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to modify the child custody award without providing him an evidentiary hearing.

Minn.Stat. § 518.185 (1980) requires a party seeking a modification of a custody order to submit together with his moving papers an affidavit setting forth facts in support of the modification and further directs that notice be provided to all other parties to the proceedings to facilitate their filing of opposing affidavits. This section does not specifically authorize the trial court to make findings based upon the affidavits. It is our view that a reasonable construction of the statute would be to require the trial court to deny a motion for modification of a custody order unless the accompanying affidavits set forth sufficient justification, if the facts alleged therein are true, for the modification. This interpretation is wholly consistent with section 410 of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, from which section 518.185 was largely taken.

As a practical matter, the burden is upon the movant to establish satisfactorily on a preliminary basis that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances from the time when the original or amended custody order was issued. Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 297, 308, 242 N.W.2d 88, 95 (1976). Moreover, the significant change of circumstances must endanger the child's physical or emotional health or the child's development. See Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d)(iii) (1980).

A review of the several affidavits accompanying the appellant's motion indicates that they do not set forth any change in circumstances sufficient to justify a modification of the custody award. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on affidavits and in refusing to schedule an evidentiary hearing. As our resolution of this question is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the other issues raised by the appellant.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Sep 25, 1981

310 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. 1981)

holding modification appropriate when the child's physical or emotional health or development is endangered

Summary of this case from Gander v. Barsic

holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying custody modification without an evidentiary hearing

Summary of this case from In re Schaefer v. Schaefer

holding that custody modification movant has burden to establish a prima facie case of endangerment before a hearing on the motion will be granted

Summary of this case from Marriage of Vanguilder v. Vanguilder

finding no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing when affidavits failed to set forth a change of circumstances justifying modification

Summary of this case from Modeo v. Price

concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on a custody-modification motion when the accompanying affidavit failed to set forth sufficient facts that, if true, demonstrated a prima facie case for modification

Summary of this case from In re Matter of Cassell v. Cassell

upholding denial of a noncustodial parent's motion for change of custody without a hearing where movant failed to make a prima facie showing

Summary of this case from Auge v. Auge

affirming a denial of modification without holding an evidentiary hearing where the appellant's affidavits did not establish a change in circumstances

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Sjodin v. Sjodin

affirming denial of modification motion without an evidentiary hearing where movant failed to establish justification for modification

Summary of this case from In re Swarthout v. Siroki

In Nice-Petersen we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for modification of custody without an evidentiary hearing when the moving party failed to make out a prima facie case of changed circumstances that endangered the child's physical or emotional health or the child's development.

Summary of this case from Goldman v. Greenwood

In Nice-Petersen, the supreme court affirmed a district court's denial of a father's motion to modify custody, which is governed by a different standard than that applied to parenting-time-modification decisions.

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Pesola

stating that party seeking modification must "establish satisfactorily on a preliminary basis that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances" that endangers the child's physical or emotional health or development

Summary of this case from Stevens v. Stevens (In re Marriage of Stevens)

requiring district court to deny motion for custody-modification and evidentiary hearing unless affidavits allege sufficient facts that, if true, would justify modification

Summary of this case from Stewart v. Doe

In Nice-Petersen, the supreme court stated that "the burden is upon the movant to establish satisfactorily on a preliminary basis that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances from the time when the original or amended custody order was issued."

Summary of this case from Marriage of Woolsey v. Woolsey

requiring a moving party to establish "that there has occurred a significant change of circumstances"

Summary of this case from Peterson v. Peterson

In Peterson v. Peterson, we affirmed a district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing on a claim that a child had been integrated into the father's home when the minor child had lived with the father for less than two of the nine years since dissolution.

Summary of this case from Stoeger v. Porter-Stoeger (In re Marriage of Stoeger)

stating that a moving party's burden is to allege facts—rather than gather evidence—sufficient to justify modification

Summary of this case from Waguespack v. Merz

In Nice-Petersen, the supreme court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to modify custody based on the affidavits without an evidentiary hearing.

Summary of this case from In re Boland

stating that unless the movant's affidavits set forth sufficient justification, the district court must deny a custody-modification motion

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Kuller v. Kuller

stating that movant has burden in custody-modification proceeding

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Higgins v. Fritz

stating if moving party fails to make a prima facie case, the district court is "require[d] . . . to deny motion"

Summary of this case from PECK v. HRON

stating if moving party fails to make a prima facie case, the district court "[is] require[d] . . . to deny motion"

Summary of this case from In re Matter of Bolander v. Deforrest

stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court is "require[d] . . . to deny motion"

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Millsop v. Millsop

stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court "[is] require[d] . . . to deny motion"

Summary of this case from Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

stating if moving party fails to make prima facie case, district court is required to deny motion

Summary of this case from PADEN v. WALD

considering guardian ad litem's report in determining whether to hold evidentiary hearing

Summary of this case from Zaldivar v. Zaldivar

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Summary

Opinion

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Summary

Opinion

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations