Archive for Child Custody – Page 4

Overnight Parenting Time with Infants and Toddlers

· October 4, 2009

When parents have disputes about parenting time in cases involving infants or toddlers, the issue of overnights often arises. In 1999, the Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges approved a “Parental Guide for Making Child-Focused Parenting Time Decisions,” prepared by the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Task Force on Visitation and Child Support Enforcement.

Regarding infants and toddlers, the Guide states (as follows in italics):

Parents of infants should establish a parenting time schedule that is consistent, predictable,and routine in nature. Depending upon the noncustodial parent’s availability and caregiving history, the noncustodial parent of an infant should have short (one to three hour) but frequent (two to three times per week) parenting time during the day or early evening. As the child grows from infant to toddler and becomes more comfortable with separation from the custodial parent, the duration of parenting time should increase. For parents who live far apart, the noncustodial parent of an infant or toddler should travel to the residential area of the custodial parent. This may mean that parenting time takes place in the home of the custodial parent or in a nearby location where the child feels comfortable. It is important for parents of infants and toddlers to establish one nighttime caregiver. Overnight and extended parenting time may not be appropriate for infants and toddlers. However, children who are able to make smooth transitions between homes, or who have older sisters or brothers to accompany them on parenting time, may be comfortable with overnight and extended parenting time.

In practice, one key fact regarding this issue is whether the young child has or has not already experienced overnight parenting time. If the child has not yet transitioned to overnights, then the above recommendations are more applicable than cases in which a child has already experienced overnights at the non-custodial home. In other words, the above recommendations cannot be readily invoked to halt overnight parenting time that has already been instituted, particularly if the child is showing no signs of maladjustment to the overnight parenting time.

Another key fact in the practice of implementing parenting time with very young children is the level of cooperation that it requires between the parents to implement frequent and consistent contact between the child and the non-custodial parent. In many cases, the parents are dealing with the parenting time arrangements of an infant or toddler shortly after their breakup. While the angst and bitterness of the parents’ separation may diminish with time, in the interim, it is necessary for the parents to coordinate the parenting time arrangements in the best interests of a child whose age and developmental stage makes that particularly difficult to do.

6 Comments

Categories : Parenting Time

Birdnesting

Posted by Gerald Williams

· September 20, 2009

· No Comments

The term birdnesting refers to a custody arrangement in which the children remain in the home, and the parents alternate residence in the home with the children. It requires each parent to have a home outside the children’s home (perhaps one alternately shared by the parents). The birdnesting arrangement has been hailed by some as a wonderful way to put the children’s interests first, and for parents to demonstrate the ultimate in cooperation and collaborative co-parenting. It is rare, however, for such an arrangement to succeed on a long term basis.

One challenge is financial: how can divorced parents co-reside in a home without co-owning the home? Which parent retains the equity in the house? Do both parents contribute to the mortgage payment? Who owns, and pays for, the other residence?

Further, if either parent remarries or relocates to another city, the arrangement ends, and it is necessary to devise a parenting plan that involves two different homes for the children. Even in the absence of a remarriage or relocation, the birdnesting arrangement constitutes more of a transitional experience for the parents than a new chapter in the parents’ lives.

No Comments

Categories : Child Custody

Moving Out of State With Minor Children

Posted by Gerald Williams

· June 11, 2009

· 3 Comments

One important change in Minnesota law in recent years pertains to changing the state of residence of minor children. Previously, Minnesota was one of a minority of U.S. states to allow a custodial parent to move with a child to another state unless the non-moving parent proved that the move was contrary to the child’s interests. That is, previously, the non-moving parent had the burden of proof, and if the burden of proof was unmet, the moving parent was granted the right to change the child’s state of residence.

The current law in Minnesota now matches the majority of other jurisdictions: the moving parent has the burden of proof, to show that the move is consistent with the child’s interests. Minnesota Statute Section 518.175, subd. 3, provides as follows:

The parent with whom the child resides shall not move the residence of the child to another state except upon order of the court or with the consent of the other parent, if the other parent has been given parenting time by the decree. If the purpose of the move is to interfere with parenting time given to the other parent by the decree, the court shall not permit the child’s residence to be moved to another state.
The court shall apply a best interests standard when considering the request of the parent with whom the child resides to move the child’s residence to another state. The factors the court must consider in determining the child’s best interests include, but are not limited to:
- the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the person proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating person, siblings, and other significant persons in the child’s life;
- the age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration special needs of the child;
- the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating person and the child through suitable parenting time arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;
- the child’s preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
- whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the person seeking the relocation either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating person.

It is important to consider that, in many cases, the burden of proof is not dispositive. If the moving parent has a compelling basis for moving the child, the court would permit the move, whether the moving parent or non-moving parent had the burden of proof. Conversely, if the moving parent has a weak case for moving, it would not matter whether the moving parent or the non-moving parent had the burden of proof; the request to move would be denied. The recent shift in the law impacts those cases in which the moving parent arguably has a strong basis for moving the child, but the non-moving parent has an equally strong basis for opposing the move.

Moreover, as with most other custody and parenting issues, the family court is likely to rely on the observations and recommendations of a custody expert or parenting neutral in determining the relative merits of a moving parent’s contentions versus the non-moving parent’s oppositions.

3 Comments

Categories : Child Custody, Divorce, General Family Law, Guardian ad litem, Parenting Time

Moving Out of State With the Children

Posted by Gerald Williams

· April 27, 2009

· No Comments

When one parent wants to move out of state, with the children, a dispute often erupts because of the other parent's opposition to such a big change for the kids. In most states, if a parent wants to move the residence of the children to another state, the burden of proving the merits of the move to the court lies with the parenting desiring to move.

Until recently, Minnesota was in the minority: making the non-moving parent prove that the move is a BAD idea. Legislation in 2006 brought Minnesota in line with the majority of jurisdictions, placing the burden of proof on the parent petitioning to change the children's state of residence.

The fact is, in many cases, the difference in the laws does not make a difference in the outcome of the case. Many proposed moves would be approved by the court, regardless of which parent has the burden of proof. Conversely, many proposed moves would be denied, either way. However, if each parent has a solid basis for their position on the issue, and the case is a "close call," the change in law can have an impact on whether or not the children are allowed to move.

When parenting neutrals are appointed to make recommendations on out-of-state moves, they are required to base their recommendations on what is in the child's best interests (not on what might be in the best interests of one of the parents). Under the previous law, the parenting neutrals would consider primarily whether there were drawbacks to the move and whether the purpose of the move was to interfere with the other parent's relationship with the child. Now, the focus is on whether the move is compelling enough, from the standpoint of the child, to be worth the upheaval involved in the move.

Another recent development is the court order that makes a parent's custody conditional on the parent remaining in Minnesota. A parent is free to move where they please, but that does not go for the child too. There is a growing incidence of the court awarding custody of the children to one of the parents, subject to the provision that if that parent decides to move out of Minnesota, custody would be transferred to the parent remaining in Minnesota.

No Comments

Categories : Child Custody

Early Neutral Evaluation

Posted by Gerald Williams

· February 1, 2009

· 1 Comment

If parents have a dispute, or potential dispute, about child custody or parenting time, the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) is a great option with a high success rate.

The ENE model works as follows: the parties meet with a team of two evaluators, one man and one woman, who hear from each parent about the facts of the case. The evaluators have training and experience that allows them to provide feedback about the circumstances of the case and what would be a likely outcome if the case were to be subjected to a full custody or parenting time evaluation.

The evaluators can then attempt to facilitate agreement of the parents on a parenting plan that is suitable for the child(ren) involved, and also recommend other services of guidelines, such as parenting time supervisors, anger management resources or child therapists. If the parents do not reach agreement, the case will proceed to evaluation, trial, mediation. But even in such event of the matter not being resolved in ENE, it provides the parents with a better understanding of how the dispute will play out, and what the basis is for the other parent's disagreement.

It is an informal process, in which the parents are not "testifying" and are not under oath. So the evaluators' observations are only as good as the facts they get from the parents. In most cases, the evaluators get an accurate enough understanding of the circumstances to make helpful observations and recommendations. The process bears out the fact that many 90-day, full-blown custody evaluations reach the same conclusions that ENE evaluators reach during a three-hour session.

If one parent calls the other parent an alcoholic, an abuser, or insists that the other parent is mentally ill, and the other parent denies it, the evaluators have to make their recommendations notwithstanding the disconnect between the parents' presentations of the circumstances. But in ENE, as in custody cases generally, the fact that there is contention about alcohol, abuse or mental illness means the issue needs to be addressed regardless of whether one parent is alcoholic, abusive or mentally ill.

If ENE is successful, the parties sign off on a parenting plan based upon the terms reached during the ENE session(s), and it is not necessary to proceed with a contested custody or parenting time dispute.

1 Comment

Categories : Child Custody

Study Group’s Report on Joint Physical Custody Presumption

Posted by Gerald Williams

· January 15, 2009

· 2 Comments

In a February 2008 blog entry, I mentioned that a bill came before the Minnesota Legislature to enact a presumption in favor of joint physical custody in Minnesota family courts. The legislative committee referred the bill to a study group, whose charge was to consider the prospect of a joint physical custody presumption.

The study group has issued its report with six non-comprehensive, non-unanimous recommendations. The study group has recommended that the Legislature do the following:

1. Fund the collection of data regarding custody arrangements and parenting plans over several years;

2. Promote cooperative agreements in future custody and parenting legislation;

3. Continue to provide the family court the ability to consider individual needs of children and families in making custody and parenting decisions;

4. Consider the essential importance of the safety of children and parents;

5. Amend current statutes to make it clear that there is no presumption for or against joint physical custody (except for the rebuttable presumption against joint physical custody in cases involving domestic abuse); and

6. If there were a presumption of joint physical custody in the future, that the term be clearly defined, and its relationship to the determination of parenting time also be clearly defined.

While the study group worked under time limitations that precluded more comprehensive recommendations, the conclusions reached by the study group reflect thorough consideration of the issue.

2 Comments

Categories : Child Custody

Custody of a Child of Unmarried Parents

Posted by Gerald Williams

· September 6, 2008

· 3 Comments

From the time that a child of unmarried parents is born until a child custody order is issued by the family court, the mother has custody. As mentioned in a previous post, a Recognition of Parentage signed by both parents provides a basis for an unmarried father to obtain parenting time or custody of a minor child. However, a father who has signed a Recognition of Parentage form must obtain a court order (at a family court hearing, or by stipulation with the mother) for his parenting time or custody to be binding on the mother, and enforceable by the family court and other authorities, such as police officers.

The distinction that the mother has custody is moot if the mother and father are together. The legal conflict is most likely to arise when the couple separates. Obviously, before the couple separates, there is not the clear need for a court order designating custody and parenting time. Upon separation, the parent who does not have the child in his or her care, and who does not have the agreement and cooperation of the other parent, will need a court order to give him or her the right to access to the child.

3 Comments

Categories : Child Custody

Parenting Rights and Responsibilities

Posted by Gerald Williams

· August 17, 2008

· 1 Comment

As a parent, you have the right to custody of, or parenting time with, your child; and the responsibility to financially support your child. Many divorced or separated parents believe that if a parent fails to pay child support, they are not entitled to see the child; or if they do not have the opportunity to see their child, then they should not have to pay child support.

In formal family court proceedings, a parent’s child support payment record and a parent’s right to see the child are not connected. I have heard many family court judges say that you cannot “buy” the right to see your child. The family court considers parenting time to the child’s right, as much (or more) as it is the parent’s right. The child has no control over whether child support is on time, adequate, or set at too high a level. Regardless of the financial circumstances, the child and the parent have the right to see each other.

When a parent’s access to a child is restricted, it will not be for financial reasons, but reasons of personal safety and well-being of the child. So, in cases in which the parent’s access is restricted, the child is still entitled to financial support. Again, the family court will consider financial support to be the child’s right, regardless of whether the child has regular contact with the non-custodial parent. If one of the parent’s access to the child is restricted for some reason, that is not the fault or responsibility of the child.

Outside of court, parents may use the child as a way of getting money, or use money as a way of getting to see the child. Given that family court is where parents go to appeal to the court to remedy their situation, it is important to know that the family court will not engage in the tit-for-tat concept with child support and parenting time.

1 Comment

Categories : Child Custody, Child Support

What the Guardian Ad Litem Says

Posted by Gerald Williams

· August 6, 2008

· 1 Comment

A guardian ad litem is appointed by the family court to get familiar with a minor child and the facts and circumstances surrounding the minor child’s custody and parenting issues.

When the guardian ad litem makes recommendations regarding custody and parenting time, the family court judge making decisions on those issues is likely to rely on the recommendations and observations of the guardian ad litem. If someone opposes the guardian ad litem’s report, they may need to request that the family court give them the opportunity to present evidence to counter the guardian’s recommendations. However, many family court judges are hesitant to preside over that kind of dispute, figuring that the court’s adoption of the guardian ad litem’s recommendation is something of a foregone conclusion. That is to say, it would require compelling evidence to convince the family court to disregard the guardian ad litem’s observations and recommendations. The family court may discourage the parties from proceeding with an evidentiary hearing, and encourage them to reach some kind of compromise to resolve the matter without a trial.

Ultimately, if someone is convinced that the guardian ad litem has not assessed the situation thoroughly, has not spent enough time to get to know the situation, or the decision that needs to be made is a close call, the family court is likely to hear the matter, and render a decision. If the party opposing the guardian ad litem’s recommendations has the support of a custody evaluator, parenting neutral, or child’s therapist, the family court is much more likely to rule in a manner that does not adopt the recommendations of the guardian ad litem.

1 Comment

Categories : Child Custody

Where the Children Should Go to School

Posted by Gerald Williams

· July 28, 2008

· 1 Comment

When divorced or separated parents need to make a decision about where their child or children will attend school in the fall, it can turn into a legal dispute. Regardless of the custodial arrangement that the children live by, it is preferable if the parents can be in agreement about school enrollment. If the parents disagree, then the designation as to legal custody may be important. Parents with joint legal custody share the authority to make a decision about school enrollment. If each parent with joint legal custody has a different school arrangement in mind for the child, then the issue likely needs to be resolved by the family court or a parenting neutral.

Unfortunately, in many instances, the family court judge would rather not make a decision without the input of a parenting neutral, and there may not be time before the beginning of the school year for a parenting neutral to investigate the situation.

When a child’s parents do not share joint legal custody, then there is less likely to be a legal issue regarding school choice. The parents’ disagreement about the choice of school may defer to the decision of the parent with sole legal custody. But the school decision must be made in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child.

If the decision is whether to keep the child at the same school, or change the school the child attends, the child is likely to stay attending the same school unless the parents agree to a different school, or there is a compelling reason for the child to change schools over the objection of one of the parents.

1 Comment

Categories : Child Custody, Divorce, Guardian ad litem

Copyright © 2025 Williams Divorce & Family Law All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy

The content of this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. To establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Divorce & Family Law requires a retainer agreement signed by you and attorney Gerald O. Williams.

Minnesota divorce attorney, Gerald O. Williams, represents clients in divorce and family law primarily in the communities of Woodbury, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Cottage Grove, Maplewood, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Stillwater, as well as the greater seven county metro area including Washington, Ramsey, Hennepin, Dakota, Anoka, Scott, and Carver.

Archive for Child Custody – Page 4

Recent Posts

Categories