In Re the Marriage of: Denise Jane Graham, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Scott Matthew Graham, Respondent. C0-97-377, Court of Appeals Unpublished, September 23, 1997.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C0-97-377

In Re the Marriage of: Denise Jane Graham, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

Scott Matthew Graham,

Respondent.

Filed September 23, 1997

Affirmed

Crippen, Judge

Anoka County District Court

File No. F7965187

Marna L. Anderson, Jensen, Hicken, & Scott, P.A., 300 Anoka Office Center, 2150 Third Ave. Anoka, MN 55303 (for Respondent)

Robert A Manson, 2006 First Avenue North Suite 205, Anoka MN 55303 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge and Short, Judge.

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

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellant Denise Graham challenges a trial court order that requires her to provide one-way visitation transportation. We affirm.

FACTS

The parties were divorced in 1996. Appellant is the custodial parent of the couple's four-year-old daughter. Shortly after the divorce, respondent was convicted of driving under the influence and lost his driving privileges. Respondent moved to amend its prior visitation decision to require appellant to transport their daughter to his home for visitation and to allow one of his family members to provide return transportation. The trial court granted respondent's motion and we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Appellant's sole argument is that the court's order is "inequitable" because respondent's transportation difficulties are due to his own misconduct. But the trial court "shall" grant visitation rights "as will enable the child and noncustodial parent to maintain a child to parent relationship that will be in the best interests of the child." Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(a) (1996); see Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (1996) ("'[s]hall' is mandatory"). The court has broad discretion in deciding visitation issues. Manthei v. Manthei, 268 N.W.2d 45, 46 (Minn. 1978). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when fulfilling its obligation to promote visitation and to reject appellant's concern about respondent's request.

Appellant states no issue regarding the financial implications, if any, of the altered visitation arrangement. See Ballard v. Wold, 486 N.W.2d 161, 162 (Minn. App. 1992) (reversing and remanding for findings a district court order apportioning visitation expenses associated with a bi-weekly, 120 mile commute to non-custodial parent's residence). Nor has she asserted any other cause for disturbing the court's decision.

Affirmed.