This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn

. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23
- 0596 In re: Guardianship of Jill Lee Osufsen.
Filed November 27, 2023 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M. , Judge
Itasca County District Court File No. 31

- PR

- 22

- 2801 Daniel S. Kufus, Steinhagen, Crist, Wehrly & Kufus, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Andrea Turk) Kent E. Nyberg, Kent E. Nyberg Law Office, Ltd., Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent Andrew Strugar) Wallace John Licke, Licke Law Office, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent Jill Lee Osufsen) Considered and decided by Bratvold , Presiding Judge; Reyes , J udge; and Smith, Tracy M. , Judge

. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH , TRACY M. , Judge Appellant Andrea Turk challenges the district court’s appointment of respondent Andrew Strugar as guardian of her mother, respondent Jill Lee Osufsen. We affirm.
FACTS Strugar is O suf sen’s significant other. In November 2022, Strugar filed a verified petition for emergency guardianship of Osufsen , seeking to be appointed her guardian

. In2 his petition , Strugar stated that Osufsen’s health

- care provider had recommended a surrogate decision

- maker for Osufsen due to her impairment from dementia, and he sub mitted a neuropsychological assessment of Osufsen from her health

- care provider that documented that recommendation

. Strugar also stated that O suf sen had previously granted him durable power of attorney for health care, and he submitted the document granti ng him that authority. T he district court granted the petition and appointed Strugar as Osufsen’s temporary emergency guardian. The order was set to expire 60 days from the date of appointment.
On January 5 , 2023, Strugar filed a petition to be appointed p ermanent guardian of Osufsen. The district court scheduled a hearing on this petition for February 14

. Strugar’s attorney mailed notice of the hearing to Osufsen’s two daughters, including Turk, on January 6

. Five days later, Strugar applied for an extension of his appointment as emergency guardian because his original , 60

- day appointment had expired

. The district court granted a 60

- day extension of the appointment on January 12. That same day , Turk filed a verified petition for emerge ncy appointment of guardian, seeking to be appointed O suf sen’s emergency guardian. T he district denied Turk’s petition. In its order , the district court stated that Strugar was appointed emergency guardian. It also stated that a hearing was scheduled for F ebruary 14 to address Strugar’s general guardianship petition and that “[t] he emergency guardianship filed by [ Turk ] will be addressed at the February 14, 2023 hearing.” A hearing was held by videoconference on February 14. Osufsen’s counsel appeared , as did Strugar and his counsel. Osufsen’s daughters also attended. After hearing3 from Strugar’s attorney and from Osufsen’s attorney, who stated that Osufsen had no objection to Strugar’s continued appointment, the district court asked i f anyone present had objections. Turk and her sister both responded that they had objections. The district court asked Turk to explain her objection s
. Turk responded that she did not believe that Osufsen was safe with Strugar as guardian. She explained tha t her mother had suffered two bone fractures under the emergency guardianship and that the daughters did not feel that Strugar was capable or that her mother’s home was safe. Strugar’s attorney responded to Turk’s argument. The district court stated that it “always give [s] folks

. . . time to chat with [ the court ]

. . . so they have their day in court.” It explained that, notwithstanding the absence of a written objection in the file, it wanted to “hear what people [had] to say.” And, the district
court ex plained, based on what was presented, it saw no reason to deny the petition. One of the daughters then requested a continuance to consult their attorney, which the district court denied. On March 1, the district court filed an order appoint ing Strugar as g uardian of Osufsen. Turk appeals.
DECISION Turk argues that the district court abused its discretion by ( 1) not allowing her to be heard at the February 14 hearing , ( 2) not receiving evidence at the February 14 hearing , ( 3) adopting verbatim Strugar’s proposed findings of fact, ( 4) appointing Strugar as4 guardian, and ( 5) not granting Turk a continuance to consult counsel. 1 “The appointment of a guardian is uniquely within the discretion of the appointing court, and we will n ot interfere with the exercise of that discretion except in the case of a clear abuse of discretion. ” In re Guardianship of Wells , 733 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007). We review a district court’s f actual findings for clear error, giving deference to the district court’s credibility determinations. Id.
I. The d istrict c ourt did not deny Turk the opportunity to be heard during the February 14 hearing . Turk first argues that the district court denied her the opportunity to be heard at the February 14 hearing

. Minnesota has adopted the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (UGPPA) , Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5

- 101 to

- 502 (2022) . Under the UGPPA, at a hearing on a petition for guardianship, the petitioner and the respondent 2 “may present evidence and subpoena witnesses and documents; examine witnesses

. . . ; and otherwise participate in the hearing.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 307( a )

. Relevant here, the statute also provides that “[a]ny person may request permission to participate in the proceeding ” and t he district

1 As a threshold matter, Strugar argues that we should dismiss the appeal because Turk , by not petitioning the district court for Strugar’s removal as guardian, has “not exhausted her lower court options.” Strugar cites no authority that suggests that a person first must file a petition for removal of a guardian before appealing the order appointing that guardian , and we know of none. We therefore decide the meri ts of this appeal.

2 In a guardianship proceeding, the “respondent” is the person “ for whom the appointment of a guardian

. . . is sought. ” Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 102, subd. 15.5 court “ may grant the request, with or without hearing” and “may attach appropriate conditions to the participation.” Id. (b). The word “m ay” is permissive

. See City of Circle
Pines v. C ounty of Anoka , 977 N.W.2d 816, 823 (Minn. 2022) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (202 0 ) )

. Thus, t he district court has the discretion to decide whether to allow persons other than the petitioner and respondent to participate in the hearing and to determine any conditions on their participation

. A t the February 14 hearing , the district court first heard from the petitioner’s and the respondent’s lawyers. It then asked if anyone present h ad objections to Strugar’s appointment as guardian. When Turk said that she did, the district court allowed her to explain her objection s . Strugar’s attorney then responded to Turk’s objection s
. Consistent with section 524.5

- 307(a) and (b), the district co urt permitted Turk to participate in the hearing and to be heard on her objections to Strugar’s appointment . The district court did not offer Turk the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses , but the statute does not require that, and, w e note , Turk did not ask to do so during the hearing. Thus, Turk is functionally arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not granting her relief she did not request. Turk argues, though, that she was entitled to present evidence at the hearing because , in its order denying her earlier petition to be appointed emergency guardian, the district court stated that her petition for emergency guardianship would “be addressed” at the February 14 hearing. Th at order is admittedly confusing

. I t (1) denies Turk’s petition for appointment as emergency guardian , (2) states that a hearing is scheduled for February 14 to address the general

- guardianship petition filed by Strugar, and (3) states6 that “[t]he emergency guardianship filed by Andrea Turk will be add ressed” at the February 14 hearing. Because the district court denied Turk’s emergency - guardianship petition, it is unclear what was meant by the statement that her petition would be “addressed” at the February 14 hearing. Nevertheless, the February 14 hea ring addressed Strugar’s general

- guardianship petition, for which Turk was neither a petitioner nor a respondent , and reference was made at the hearing to the fact that Turk had filed an
emergency - guardianship petition and that it had been denied. The dist rict court had the discretion to decide whether and how Turk could participate in the hearin g and acted within its discretion when it allowed Turk to orally object and explain her objections to Strugar’s petition

. II. The d istrict c ourt d id n ot a buse i ts d iscretion by r elying on the p etition s and exhibits for i ts f indings of f act, c onclusions of l aw, and o rder. Turk next challenges the district court ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order , because the district court did not hear testimony or receiv e other evidence during the February hearing. Again, u nder the UGPPA, at a guardianship hearing , the petitioner and the respondent “ may ” present evidence and examine witnesses. Minn. Stat. § 524. 5

- 307(a). The petitioner and respondent thus can choose whether to present evidence or testimony at the guardianship hearing. Neither Strugar nor Osufsen chose to examine witnesses or introduce evidence at the February hearing

. I nstead , they relied on the e vidence submitted in the verified petition s for appointment of guardian , includ ing the exhibits

. It was within the district court’s7 discretion to make factual findings based on this evidence , without requiring Strugar or Osufsen

— or another interested perso n such as Turk

— to examine witnesses or introduce evidence at the February 14 hearing. In support of her argument, Turk contrasts the proceedings here with the proceedings in a nonprecedential case in which we determined that a district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a conservator after holding an evidentiary hearing on a contested petition

. See In re Guardianship of Neu , No. A22

- 0578, 2022 WL 17574951 (Minn. App. Dec. 12, 2022). While the February 14 hearing differed from the evidentiary hearing in Neu , Turk cite s no caselaw , and we are aware of none, in which a guardianship appointment has been reversed because the district court did not hear testimony or receive other evidence at a guardianship hearing when neither the petiti oner nor the respondent asked to present it

. In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion in t he district court ’s reliance on the contents of verified petition s and exhibits to make its factual findings, conclusions of law, and order when neither party sough t to present further testimony or other evidence at the February 14 hearing

. III. The d istrict c ourt d id n ot a buse i ts d iscretion by a dopting v erbatim Strugar’s p roposed f indings of f act.
Turk asserts that the district court abused its discretion by adopting verbatim Strugar’s proposed findings of fact in the district court’s order. “Adoption of a party’s proposed findings by a district court is generally an accepted practice. But if a cour t adopts a proposed order, it raises the question of whether the court8 independently evaluated the evidence. A reviewing court examines the findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.” Schallinger v. Schallinger , 699 N.W.2d 15, 23 (Minn. App. 2005) (citations omitted) , rev
. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2005)

. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney , 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (quot ation omitted). “A district court ’ s verbatim adoption of a party ’ s proposed findings and conclusions of law is not reversible error per se.” Schallinger , 699 N.W.2d at 23. Under the UGPPA, a district court may appoint a guardian if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that “ ( 1) the respondent is an incapacitated person; and ( 2) the respondent’s identified needs cannot be met by less restrictive means

. ” Minn. Stat. § 524 .5

- 310(a). The Act defines “incapacitated person” as an individual who, for reasons other than being a minor, is impaired to the extent of lacking sufficient understanding or capacity to make personal decisions, and who is unable to meet personal needs for medical care, nutrition, clothing, shelter, or safety, even with appropriate technological and supported decision making assistance. Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 102, subd. 6. Although the district court made the factual findings required by the se statutes , Turk contends that the findings are not supported by the record because no testimony was taken and no other evidence was admitted at the February hearing. But, as discussed above, t he district court relied on the information in the verified petition s and the exhibits

— particularly, the physician’s neuropsychological assessment of Osufsen

— to make its9 factual findings and was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing

. The record therefore supports the district court’s factual findings. Because Turk ha s not shown that the findings are clearly erroneous, we conclude that t he district court did not abuse its discretion by adopting Strugar’s proposed findings of fact verbatim

. IV. The d istrict c ourt d id n ot a buse i ts d iscretion by a ppointing Strugar as Osufsen ’s g uardian.
Turk contends that the district court abused its discretion by appointing Strugar as guardian. She argues that Minnesota law places Strugar at a lower priority for appointment as guardian than Turk. “We review a district court’s application o f the law de novo.” Harlow v. State , Dep’t of Hum

. Servs. , 883 N.W.2d 561, 568 (Minn. 2016). Under the UGPPA, when deciding who m to appoint as guardian, the district court must consider qualified individuals in a specific order of priority. Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 309(a). The categories relevant to this appeal, in order of highest priority to lowest, are “a health care agent appointed by the respondent in a health care directive that does not include limitations o n the nomination of the health care agent as a guardian and is executed pursuant to chapter 145C ,” “ an adult child of the respondent ,” and “ an adult with whom the respondent ha s resided for more than six months before the filing of the petition

. ” Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 309(a) (2), (4), (6)

. Turk argues that she has priority because she is the “adult child of [Ofusen]” and Strugar is only “an adult with whom [Osufsen] has resided for more than six months

. ” Strugar counters that he has priority because he is “a health care agent appointed by [Osufsen]

. ” T he question of priority does not appear to have been raised to or decided by10 the district court and is therefore not properly before this court. See Thiele v. Stich , 425
N .W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (noting that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the district court). Regardless of this d efect, Turk has failed to establish error in the district court’s appointment of Strugar. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn , 13 N.W.2d 461, 464

- 65 (Minn. 1944) (stating that error is not presumed on appeal and the appellant has the burden of showing error on appeal ). Accompanying the petition for emergency appointment of a guardian is a copy of a d urable
p ower of a ttorney for h ealth c are naming Strugar as Osufsen’s a ttorney

- in

- f act for making health care decisions, dated January 9, 2019. Thus, Strugar was higher on the priority list than Turk because he was a health care agent for Osufsen before Strugar petitioned for guardianship

. 3 Moreover, even if Strugar were lower on the priority list, the district court has the discretion to appoint a lower

- priority guardian. “The court, acting in the best interest of the respondent, may decline to appoint a person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5

- 309(b). The district court found that
Stru gar “is the most suitable and best qualified among those available.” Reasonable evidence in the record supports that determination, and w e discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s appointment of Strugar as Osufsen’s guardian.

3 In her appellate brief, Turk states

— without explanation

— that the health

- care power of attorney “doesn’t appear to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat.§ 145C.03, subd. 1.” Such a conclusory assertion is insufficient to assert or establish error. See Minn. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Mi nn. 1997) (stating that appellate courts do not reach issues that are inadequately briefed).11 V. The d istrict c ou rt d id n ot a buse i ts d iscretion by d enying T urk a c ontinuance to consult c ounsel. Turk argues that the district court erred by not granting Turk and her sister a continuance. We review the denial of a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Torchwood Props., LLC v. McKinnon , 784 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Minn. App. 2010) (citing Dunshee v. Douglas , 255 N.W.2d 42, 45 (Minn. 1977)). Turk appeared for the February 14 hearing without counse l. Because she received notice of the hearing more than a month earlier, s he had time to consult counsel and to arrange for her lawyer to attend the hearing . At the hearing, the district court allowed Turk to participate by explaining her objection s to Str ugar’s appointment. Only a fter the district court stated that it would grant Strugar’s petition did Turk request a continuance to consult her attorney

. The district court acted within its discretion by denying the request

. Affirmed.