¶1(concurring).
¶2I concur in the opinion of the court but write separately to note concerns with respect to whether the district court abused its discretion in the amount and character of visitation awarded to respondent.
¶3Appellant correctly notes that third-party visitation rights are governed by Minn. *827Stat. § 257C.08 subd. 4, and SooHoo is entitled to visitation only to the extent that visitation is in the best interest of the children and does not interfere with the custodial parent’s relationship with her children. In that context, a reflexive award of visitation to a third party that mirrors an award of visitation more typically granted to a non-custodial parent might very well constitute an abuse of discretion. Given the importance of holiday events to parent-child relationships, alternating holiday arrangements are particularly problematic in visitation awards under the third-party visitation statute.
¶4That said, here, I am persuaded by the unique facts before us, and the detailed and thorough findings and conclusions of the district court, that there was no abuse of discretion in the visitation award.