With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be harmless. See T.D., 731 N.W.2d at 553 (stating that failure to object to evidence at trial results in waiver of appellate review); In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 172 (Minn.App.2005) (noting that erroneous admission of evidence which is cumulative to other admissible evidence is harmless). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. In sum, we conclude that appellant’s evi-dentiary challenges are without merit. Even apart from the challenged evidence, substantial independent and undisputedly admissible evidence supported the district court’s findings. And, because this was a bench trial, any prejudice stemming from any erroneously admitted evidence would be minimal. See State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459, 467 (Minn.2009) (<HOLDING>); S.R.A., 527 N.W.2d at 838 (recognizing that

A: recognizing that risk of unfair prejudice is diminished in bench trial
B: holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction
C: recognizing that a delay in proceedings to explore a collateral matter can create a risk of prejudice
D: holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice
A.