4. However, we also

determined that the record supported a finding that Heidi was still a child within the

meaning of chapter 518 and 518A, and that therefore “any modification of [appellant’s]

parental rights should have been governed by those chapters.” Id. at *3. In so holding,

we noted that the “duly-established custodial arrangement between appellant and

respondent is incompatible with the appointment of respondent as the sole guardian.” Id.

We explained that while,

              [w]e do not intend to imply that Minnesota law disallows the
              appointment of a sole guardianship for a ward over whom
              parents exercise custodial rights[,] [t]he [Uniform
              Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act] cannot be used
              to completely or substantially abrogate existing custodial
              rights over the objection of a custodial parent.

Id. at *7.

       We reversed the decision and remanded to the district court “for consideration of

the competing guardianship petitions in light of the current custodial arrangement

between the parties and the requirements for modification of appellant’s legal custody

under chapter 518.” Id.

V.     On remand

       After remand, appellant filed a motion for parenting-time assistance on October

30, 2013. Respondent moved to transfer venue of the parties’ family proceedings to



                                              6
Washington County, and appellant opposed the transfer of venue. The Dakota County

District Court granted the motion on December 5, 2013.2 The district court found that

appellant had not been working in Washington County for several years and that neither

party resided in Dakota County. Because the “issues and concerns of the parties, as well

as the issue remanded to Washington County are inextricably interwoven,” the district

court determined that “the interests of judicial economy justify a change of venue to

Washington County.”

       On December 26, 2013, respo