Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding
Judge, Schumacher,
Judge, and Klaphake,
Judge. 

U N
P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

KLAPHAKE, Judge

In
this action dissolving her marriage to respondent William Claviter, appellant
Theresa Claviter alleges that the district court abused its discretion by
awarding custody of their child, R.M.C., to respondent.  Appellant argues that the court erred in
failing to consider evidence that respondent had made false allegations of
child abuse against her and in crediting respondent’s testimony after he
testified falsely under oath as required by Minn. Stat. §  518.17, subd.  1a
(2000).  Because the district court
properly considered the “best interests” factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 
518.17, subd.  1(a) (2000), and because there is a factual basis in the record
to support the court’s findings on these factors, we affirm. 

D E C I S I O N

Appellate review of a custody
determination is limited to “whether the [district] court abused its discretion
by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the
law.”  Silbaugh v. Silbaugh, 543
N.W.2d 639, 641 (Minn. 1996) (quotation omitted).  Findings are unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous if
the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made.  Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d
468, 472 (Minn. App.  2000).  Findings
are reviewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings.  Id.
This court gives great deference to the district court’s opportunity to
assess the credibility of witnesses.  Sefkow
v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). 

The overriding concern in custody
determinations is the best interests of the child.  Schumm v. Schumm, 510 N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn. App. 
1993).  The court determines the child’s
best interests by reviewing the factors listed in Minn. Stat. §  518.17, subd. 
1(a) (2000).  No one factor may be
relied on to the exclusion of others; specifically, the determination of who
has been the child’s primary caretaker, while important, is not
controlling.  Id. Likewise, while the court is directed to
consider whether a party has violated Minn. Stat. §  609.507 (2000), by making a
false allegation of abuse with the intent to influence a custody hearing, this
is also just one of the factors used to determine the best interests of the
child.  Minn. Stat. §  518.17, subd.  1a
(2000). 

In its findings, the district court
recognized that neither party had been fully truthful in his or her dealings
with the court and with court personnel. 
It is clear that the court considered the issue and reached conclusions
about the credibility of the parties and their testimony.  We defer to the district court in these
matters. 

The district court made specific
findings on each of the statutory factors listed in Minn. Stat. §  518.17, subd. 
1(a).  Those findings indicate that
although both parties are loving and concerned parents, respondent is more
likely to provide a stable and consistent environment for R.M.C., particularly
in light of the continuing hostility between the parties.  Our review is limited to determining whether
there is evidence to support the court’s findings, whether the findings are
clearly erroneous, and whether the court has misapplied the law.  We are satisfied that the court’s decision
is supported by the record and that the court properly applied the law.