Because the lack of findings precludes us from reviewing the disposition, we remand for the district court to either make the required findings or modify its disposition and make any necessary findings. Mother does not dispute the district court's authority to schedule post-hearing submissions. She claims, however, that her papers were timely and that equity required the district court to consider her papers. Our review of the record shows that mother's papers were untimely. Mother's claim that equity required the district court to consider her papers is essentially a challenge to the district court's refusal to grant her a continuance.
Continuances are discretionary with the district court.
Here, mother was present when the district court set the schedule for post-hearing submissions, she did not seek a continuance until the day before her papers were due, and she alleges no specific prejudice as a result of the district court's failure to consider her papers. See Midway Ctr. On this record, given the already unnecessarily extensive nature of these proceedings, we cannot say it was an abuse of the district court's discretion to deny a continuance. Mother claims that the district court should have reviewed the disposition as requested by the child. Minn. R. Juv.