Opinion ID: 2110567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District court order on remand

Text: On remand, the district court considered the case on affidavits and written arguments; no new oral testimony was taken. The district court determined that Giese's move with Logan was unilateral, and ordered that no evidence of events occurring after October 16, 1996, could be submitted. This restriction was coupled with an agreement by the parties in their MTA that because each was in a temporary work situation, [3] the parties agreed that no evidence shall be introduced during the period regarding [the temporary work] situations for a change of custody proceeding. The district court determined that Giese's training period lasted from December 1, 1994, until November 30, 1995, and ruled that no evidence from this time period would be considered in determining custody. Essentially, because of the parties' stipulation and the district court's ruling, the time period from which to evaluate custody was reduced to December 1995 to September 1996, just 10 months of Logan's life. Logan was almost seven years old when the district court issued its order on February 9, 1998, ruling: [1] It is in Logan's best interest to reside with [Giese] in Ortonville, MN; [2] In the event # 1 above is not a possibility, it is in Logan's best interests to reside in Ortonville, MN, with [Frauenshuh]. The district court ordered that physical custody of Logan be awarded to Frauenshuh, but stayed its order pending appeal. [4]