Court Opinion

ID: 9668393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:11:32.129903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:45.169768
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Three salient facts should determine this appeal. First, appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing when the parties initially appeared before the referee. Second, the district court has the discretion to require a third party to supervise visitation or to restrict visitation when there are specific allegations that visitation may place a child in danger of harm and the court believes it is necessary to protect the child. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5 (1992). Third, when the appellant, during the pendency of this appeal, brought a motion before the district court referee requesting an evidentiary hearing, the referee instructed the clerk of court to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the visitation issue at the earliest possible date and that hearing has been scheduled.
I agree with the majority’s holding that appropriate findings must accompany the *474award of attorneys’ fees and that attorneys’ fees should be allowed for the appeal. But I disagree that an appellate recasting of this case is necessary or helpful when the district court has already scheduled an evidentiary hearing.