However, "after the court incorporates the stipulation into a judgment, the stipulation is treated as a judgment, not as a contract," and the law "expressly allows for modification of such judgments as they relate to parenting time." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 76 (Minn.App. 2017) (emphasis added).

Nevertheless, the district court has broad discretion in deciding parenting time and custody questions and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn. App. 2017). Appellant raises ten claims of error in his pro se informal brief.

A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is based on a misapplication of the law or is "against logic and the facts [in the] record." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75, 77 (Minn.App. 2017). In doing so, we review legal questions de novo and the district court's factual findings for clear error. See Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 2018) (legal questions); Griffin v. Van Griffin, 267 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn. 1978) (factual findings).

"We review de novo the district court's determination of the appropriate standard to obtain relief." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 76 (Minn.App. 2017). As described in the previous section, section 518.18(d)(iv) governs modification of custody based on endangerment.

The district court has broad discretion in deciding parenting-time questions and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017).

Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(a) (2022); see Minn. Stat. § 257C.02(a) (stating that chapter 518 "appl[ies] to" third-party-custody proceedings "unless otherwise specified in this chapter") (2022). "The district court has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017) (quotation omitted). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record."

"The district court has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017); Olson 534 N.W.2d at 550.

The district court has broad discretion in deciding parenting-time questions, and this court will not reverse a district court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record."

Id. We reiterated Hesse ’s holding in Shearer v. Shearer , 891 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. App. 2017), in which the parents agreed to equal amounts of parenting time, with the specific days to be determined by them according to the father's out-of-town work schedule, which varied on a monthly basis. Id. at 74.

We therefore review the CSM's decision on the modification of child support for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.App. 2017). A CSM is afforded broad discretion in making child-support determinations, Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn. 1999), and we defer to the CSM's credibility determinations, Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn.App. 2000).