Minn.Stat. § 518.17

Section 518.17 concerns custody orders made when a court adjudges a divorce, separation, or annulment.

Cummiskey v. Cummiskey · filed 1961-02-17

Minn. St. 518.17 ... relates to custody of children on judgment in a divorce action. ... Here the divorce was denied and no order was made relating to custody which continued the jurisdiction of the court.

Section 518.17 helps authorize a court to reconsider a child custody decree after a substantial change in a party’s or the child’s circumstances.

Eisel v. Eisel · filed 1961-09-01

Under our statute ... the trial court may at any time entertain a petition to amend a decree affecting the custody of a child, based on a substantial change in the circumstances of either a party or the child.

Section 518.17 gives trial courts wide discretion in awarding custody, guided by the children’s welfare.

Bryant v. Bryant · filed 1963-02-08

Under Minn. St. 518.17 ... and 518.18, ... the trial court is vested with wide discretion in determining which parent shall be awarded such custody, with the welfare of the children in mind.

Section 518.17 gives courts discretion to decide the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children.

Reiland v. Reiland · filed 1971-04-02

The controlling statute is Minn. St. 518.17, which gives the court discretion to make provision by order for the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children of the parties.

Section 518.17 authorizes a divorce court to make just and proper orders concerning the custody of minor children.

Currier v. Currier · filed 1965-06-18

Under the provisions of Minn. St. 518.17, ... which authorize ... the court in divorce proceedings to make such orders as it deems just and proper concerning the custody of minor children, the order described was proper.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3, governs initial custody determinations and requires the court to consider the child’s best interests without preferring a parent solely because of sex.

State on Behalf of Gunderson v. Preuss · filed 1983-07-22subd. 3

Plaintiff argues that the trial court instead applied the standards of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3 (1982), which govern an initial custody determination and which have a different focus. We agree.

Section 518.17 requires an evidentiary hearing before an initial custody award so the court can determine the child's best interests.

Morey v. Peppin · filed 1984-08-07

We agree with appellant that there has been no prior adjudication of Chad Morey’s custody and hold that as a matter of law, under the facts of this case, Gilbert Peppin has a right to an evidentiary hearing on the question of the award of custody that serves the best interests of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1982).

Section 518.17’s best-interests standard alone does not govern a change in physical custody; the change must satisfy section 518.18(d), even when joint legal custody continues.

Marriage of Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer · filed 1985-03-26

When Gale sought to change the physical custody of the two boys because of Katherine’s move to Mountain Lake, Gale argues the appropriate standard for the court to apply was “the best interests of the child” found in Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1982). He obviously does not want the requirements and presumptions of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1982) applied because section 518.18(d) prohibits a trial court from modifying a prior custody award unless the noncustodial parent overcomes certain presumptions which section 518.17 does not contain. He is wrong. ... Therefore, any change in physical custody must comply with the requirements of section 518.18(d), which specifically applies to custody modification.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3, does not permit a family court to award legal custody to a third party that does not seek custody and objects to receiving it.

Marriage of Murray v. Murray · filed 1985-05-14(3)

We do not believe Minn.Stat. § 518.17 permits a family court to place legal custody with a third person who is not seeking and objects to legal custody of the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 supplies factors for an initial custody determination but does not govern a transfer of custody after a final custody order.

Marriage of Young v. Young · filed 1985-06-25subd. 1

We conclude that the trial court erred in transferring the custody of James and John from mother to father based on the factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. Minn.Stat. § 518.-18 governs modification of a final custody order.

Section 518.17 supplies the criteria for an initial custody determination when competing claims are asserted during a dissolution or paternity proceeding.

Morey v. Peppin · filed 1985-10-11subd. 3

Competing claims for custody are resolved by holding an eviden-tiary hearing and determining custody according to the criteria set out in section 518.17 if the claims are asserted at the time of the marital dissolution or the adjudication of paternity.

Section 518.17 governs custody determinations, while section 518.18 governs custody modifications.

Wenndt v. Wenndt · filed 1986-12-23

“[T]rial courts must apply § 518.18 [custody modification], not § 518.17 [custody], to a custody modification action.” ... The record shows at the close of the hearing the court initially stated it intended to rely on section ... 518.17, but quickly agreed Minn.Stat. § 518.18 applies and the findings so reflect.

Section 518.17 governs original custody determinations made during or together with a paternity action; a custody proceeding begun after the paternity action is treated as a request to modify custody.

Psyck v. Wojtysiak · filed 1987-02-10

If a custody proceeding is concurrent or consolidated with a paternity action and the matter under consideration is the original determination of custody, the court must apply the standards set out in Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1986). ... If the custody proceeding is commenced after the conclusion of the paternity action, the court must treat the action as one seeking a modification of the custody order entered in the paternity action and must apply the standards of Minn.Stat. § 518.-18(d) (1986). ... Because Psyck had the sole right to custody, this action must be treated as a motion to modify custody.

When both parents are fit and seek custody of a child too young to express a preference, courts consider subdivision 1 factors together with the primary-parent factors in Pikula.

Marriage of Bear v. Bear · filed 1987-11-24subd. 1

When both parties are fit parents and both seek custody of a child too young to express a parental preference, the court must consider the factors in section 518.17, subd. 1 together with the factors laid down by the supreme court in Pikula.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3, permits a court to enter a temporary custody order when it deems the order just and proper.

Bettin v. Bettin · filed 1987-04-21subd. 3

Brenda argues that the trial court cannot enter an order temporarily placing the child in the custody of his father for one year. Her conclusion is erroneous. Although the court can enter such an order pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3 (providing that the trial court may enter an order regarding custody as it deems “just and proper”), in this case the court’s findings merely refer to a one-year period needed by Brenda to prepare herself to meet the obligations of a parent.

Section 518.17 governs initial custody awards; its criteria cannot be used to modify a custody decree.

In Re the Welfare of V.H. · filed 1987-09-22subd. 1

Initial awards of custody are governed by Minn.Stat. § 518.17. It is reversible error for a court to modify a custody decree based upon the criterion listed in § 518.17.

Section 518.17 supplies the best interests factors used to assess whether a custody modification would serve a child.

Marriage of Abbott v. Abbott · filed 1992-03-10

Minn.Stat. § 518.17 sets forth the factors to be considered when determining whether modification of a custody order would be in the child’s best interests. ... The affidavits appellant submitted in support of his motion for modification of custody, taken as true, establish a prima facie case that modification would be in the best interests of Jenny. ... Taking the facts alleged in his affidavit to be true, however, appellant has presented sufficient evidence that modification of custody would be in Marie’s “best interests” as well.

Section 518.17 requires courts to resolve specific custodial-care disputes according to the child’s best interests.

Novak v. Novak · filed 1989-10-10subd. 3(a)(3)

In determining custody, the court “shall consider the best interests” of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3(a)(3) (1988). The law makes no distinction between general determinations of custody and resolution of specific issues of custodial care.

Section 518.17’s best interests factors do not exclusively govern the resolution of conflicting paternity presumptions.

In Re Paternity of BJH · filed 1998-01-13(1)(a)

Thus, not only does Minn.Stat. § 518.17 assume the determination for which its list of best interests factors will be used is a custody determination where parentage is known (or at least not contested), but the open-ended definition of "best interests" shows that the legislature recognized the factors listed in the statute would not always be sufficient to make a custody adjudication. ... Under these circumstances, we conclude a district court is not required to apply only the statutory factors in addressing conflicting paternity presumptions.

Section 518.17’s best interests factors are not the only factors a court may consider when resolving conflicting paternity presumptions.

A.J.S. v. M.T.H. · filed 1998-01-13(1)(a)

The district court correctly used factors in addition to the best interests factors listed in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), to address the conflicting paternity presumptions.

Section 518.17’s best-interests factors may be used in a child guardianship proceeding, but the court need not apply every factor or limit its inquiry to them.

In Re the Welfare of M.J.L. · filed 1998-08-18

We conclude that, where applicable, a court may use the best-interests factors of section 518.17, but it is not limited to only those factors nor need it apply all of them.

Section 518.17 normally applies to custody disputes when no prior court order has granted custody.

Valentine v. Lutz · filed 1994-03-11subd. 1

Section 518.17 normally applies to custody disputes where there is no prior court order granting custody. In this case, the county has had legal custody of J.A.D. at all times since 1988 except for the two brief periods in 1992 when appellants received ex parte orders granting them custody of J.A.D.

Section 518.17’s best interests standard does not replace the statutory standard for modifying sole physical custody, even when the parents stipulated to its use.

Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese · filed 1999-09-02

In this case, the court of appeals in Giese I determined that the parties should be permitted (or at least had in fact been permitted by the district court order approving the marital termination agreement) to establish their own standard for modification of custody, despite the legislature's clear intent to limit the application of the best interests standard of section 518.17 to situations involving joint physical custody. Accordingly, we conclude that the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in remanding the case to the district court for application of the best interests standard agreed to by the parties.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3 describes a custody order as including provisions on legal custody, physical custody and residence, and support; a request to remove parenting-time restrictions does not involve a custody order.

In Re Welfare of BKP · filed 2003-06-17(3)

Appellant's motion does not involve a custody order, which includes provisions regarding a child's legal custody, physical custody and residence, and support. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3 (2002).

Section 518.17, subdivision 3, describes a custody order as including provisions on legal custody, physical custody and residence, and support.

Neu v. Pollard · filed 2003-06-17(3)

Appellant’s motion does not involve a custody order, which includes provisions regarding a child’s legal custody, physical custody and residence, and support. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3 (2002).

Section 518.17 allows a court to restrict a child’s in-state residence when the restriction is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.

Schisel v. Schisel · filed 2009-03-103(a)(2)

We hold that the district court enjoys the authority to restrict the in-state residence of a minor child upon a showing that the restriction is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.

Section 518.17 requires a dissolution or separation order to address the children’s physical custody and residence, and an implicit finding of residence can satisfy that requirement.

In re the Marriage of: Jaime Dawn Starren v. Starren · filed 2015-10-05(3)(a)(2)

In a dissolution or separation proceeding, a district court is required to issue an order regarding the “physical custody and residence” of the parties’ minor children. ... We therefore conclude that the December 26, 2013 judgement and decree implicitly included a finding that the children’s residence was Thief River Falls.

Subdivision 1(a)’s best-interests factors apply to custody and parenting-time determinations, not termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. S., E. B. and H. J., Parents. · filed 2016-02-011(a)

District courts are not required to consider these factors in other proceedings.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires courts to consider all relevant best-interests factors and make detailed findings explaining how those factors support a custody decision.

Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Hare · filed 2016-06-13subd. 1(a), (b)(1)

In making its best-interests determination, the district court “must consider and evaluate all relevant factors” and “must make detailed findings on each of the factors . . . based on the evidence presented and explain how each factor led to its conclusions and to the determination of custody.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), (b)(1). One factor may not be used to the exclusion of others. ... We have reviewed each of Hare’s allegations and the record, and we conclude that the district court properly considered the relevant factors.

Section 518.17 requires courts to consider all relevant factors in a child’s best interests, including a parent’s ability to manage finances when deciding who should choose the child’s school.

In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Pederson · filed 2016-08-15subd. 1(a)

The statute requires the district court to consider “all relevant factors.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a). And because the decision whether to enroll the children in private or public school has significant financial implications, each parent’s ability to manage finances is relevant.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, does not require separate analyses of the best-interests factors when those factors bear on both paternity and custody.

A. S. v. K. C.-W. (In re C. F. N.) · filed 2018-12-31(1)

There is no requirement *335that the district court conduct two separate analyses of the statutory best-interests factors.

Section 518.17’s best-interest factors apply to custody decisions involving fit parents, not termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. R. and J. B., Parents. · filed 2017-02-13

The district court did not err by refusing to consider the best-interest factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.17.

Section 518.17’s best-interests findings are not required when a court awards temporary custody in an order-for-protection proceeding.

Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J. v. James · filed 2017-10-23subd. 1

And the district court did not err by ordering temporary sole legal and physical custody in favor of mother in conjunction with the issuance of an OFP without making custody findings under Minnesota Statutes section 518.17.

Section 518.17 governs the creation and initial approval of parenting plans; section 518.175 governs later parenting time modifications.

Hansen v. Todnem · filed 2018-03-14

Applying the logic of Gunderson and Morey , we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 518.17 applies to the creation and initial approval of parenting plans, but Minn. Stat. § 518.175 still governs parenting time modifications.

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to serve the children’s best interests without preferring a parent solely because of sex.

Nohrenberg v. Nohrenberg · filed 1970-06-12

At the time of the hearing on the post-trial motion, L. 1969, c. 1030, which amended Minn. St. 518.17,1 had become effective and its force was urged upon the court. ... Above all, the record makes clear that the *556trial court, in arriving at the determination made, had in mind only the best welfare of all of the children without preferring one parent over the other.

Section 518.17 requires courts to consider all facts bearing on a child's best interests and prohibits preferring a parent solely because of that parent's sex.

Ryg v. Kerkow · filed 1973-05-25

See, also, Minn. St. 518.17, which provides in part that the trial court “shall consider all facts in the best interest of the children and shall not prefer one parent over the other solely on the basis of the sex of the parent.” ... In the instant case, the trial court, following these principles, determined that, although the parents were equally fit to have custody, the best interests of the children would be served by their remaining in defendant’s custody.

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to serve the child's welfare and forbids preferring a parent solely because of sex.

Erickson v. Erickson · filed 1974-07-26

Several well-established rules govern the decision and review of child custody matters under Minn. St. 518.17. ... While defendant is therefore correct in urging that the mother not be given an absolute preference on the basis of her sex, there is nothing in this record to suggest that the trial court gave plaintiff such a preference or otherwise failed to follow the statutory criteria.

Section 518.17 requires courts to make an independent custody judgment based on the children’s welfare and best interests, even when the parents have stipulated to custody.

Petersen v. Petersen · filed 1973-04-27

Although considerable weight is given to stipulations intelligently entered with the benefit of counsel, Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426, 84 N. W. 2d 367, 371 (1957), in determining questions of custody the paramount issue remains the welfare and best interests of the children. The court must in every case exercise an independent judgment and is not bound by the stipulation.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires custody awards to be based on the child’s best interests.

Weatherly v. Weatherly · filed 1983-03-25subd. 1

The applicable statute, however, requires that a grant of custody be based on the best interests of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1982). The record in this case does not support a conclusion that Kevin’s best interests will be served by a grant of custody to respondent.

Section 518.17(1) requires custody decisions to serve each child’s best interests and permits a supported award of custody to different parents.

Marriage of Chambard v. Chambard · filed 1984-05-29(1)

Under Minnesota Law, the trial court must determine custody in light of the best interests of the children involved. Minn.Stat. § 518.17(1) (1982); ... The trial court order giving custody of one child to the mother and one child to the father was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, bars consideration of a proposed custodian’s conduct unless it affects that person’s relationship with the child.

Marriage of Kotila v. Kotila · filed 1984-07-17subd. 1

The court may not, however, consider conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect her relationship with the child. See generally Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1982).

Section 518.17 excludes a proposed custodian’s conduct from custody decisions when it does not affect that person’s relationship with the child.

Pikula v. Pikula · filed 1984-09-05

The statute specifically excludes conduct not affecting the relationship of a proposed custodian to the child from consideration in determining custody.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires courts to consider stability and continuity when deciding custody.

Marriage of Hegerle v. Hegerle · filed 1984-09-18(1)(d)-(f)

Subdivisions (d), (e) and (f) of the statute stress the importance of considering stability and continuity when determining a custody issue, and in this instance a finding that the respondent’s community appears to be the more stable environment would be supported by the record.

Section 518.17 requires the trial court to consider a child's relationship with siblings and make findings showing that it considered that relationship.

Marriage of Rinker v. Rinker · filed 1984-11-20subd. 1(c)

Our statutes require the trial court to consider and evaluate the “interaction and interrelationship” of the child with his siblings, and the trial court here made no findings to show that subject had been considered. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(c) (1982).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 does not permit a court to decide physical custody solely on religious upbringing when both parents are willing and able to continue the children’s religious training.

Horner v. Horner · filed 1985-02-26subd. 1

The stipulation provides evidence of each parent’s capacity and disposition to continue the religious training of the children, resulting in an equal balance on this factor. Although Stephen Horner questioned Joyce Horner’s disposition to abide by the agreement, her demonstrated ability and willingness to continue training in the Catholic Church contradicts his speculations. Under the facts of this case religion is not a factor on which the trial court could rely to the exclusion of others to determine which parent’s physical custody would best serve the interests of the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, directs courts deciding custody to consider siblings’ relationships, adjustment to home and school, continuity of care, and each parent’s capacity to guide the children.

Sefkow v. Sefkow · filed 1985-10-18(1)

It serves the best interests of the children to let them live together. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. These interests are best served by continuing the mother’s primary care, having due regard for the interaction the children have had with her (subdivision 1(c)), their adjustment to her home and her school program (subdivision 1(d)), the time they have been with their mother (subdivision 1(e)), and the mother’s unusual capacity to give them guidance (subdivision 1(h)).

A parent's mental illness does not preclude custody when the evidence shows the parent can care for the child with treatment and custody serves the child's best interests.

Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer · filed 1985-10-15(g)

Although the evidence demonstrates that Margery’s behavior is somewhat unusual and at times bizarre and paranoid, and that she must continue treatment and medication for her problems, sufficient testimony at trial demonstrates that, under proper treatment and medication, she is capable of caring for Ross and that his best interests would be served by remaining with her.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(b), requires a court to consider a child’s reasonable custody preference; a preference influenced by a parent’s manipulation may be found unreasonable.

Marriage of Hoffa v. Hoffa · filed 1986-02-18(b)

A child’s preference is one of a number of factors the court must consider in determining the “best interests” of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b). But under the statute this preference must be a reasonable one. Id. The court concluded, in essence, that the children’s preference was not a reasonable one because it was tainted by manipulative conduct on Randy’s part.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires courts to consider the children’s best interests when deciding custody.

Marriage of Hemingsen v. Hemingsen · filed 1986-09-23subd. 1

The best interests of the children are to be taken into consideration in determining which parent is appropriate for custody. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984). ... Here, where the court did not make a finding as to who was the primary caretaker, but rather found that both parties shared the children’s upbringing and went on to indicate that the court was interested in acting in the best interests of the children, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding respondent custody.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, treats a child’s custodial preference as one factor among many in assessing the child’s best interests.

Marriage of Lundell v. Lundell · filed 1986-05-27subd. 1

Daniel’s custodial preference, however, is only one factor among many that a court uses to assess the best interests of a child. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984). The^trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to follow this change in preference alone without considering the other relevant factors.

Section 518.17’s best interest factors give particular importance to stability and continuity of care and environment for young children.

Marriage of Sydnes v. Sydnes · filed 1986-06-03subd. 1(c), (d), (e), (f)

Of particular importance to young children are the “best interest” factors stressing stability and continuity of care and environment. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(c), (d), (e), (f) (1984); Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 711-12 (Minn.1985).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires courts to evaluate the child's best interests, including relevant relationships and the health of those involved, before approving a move.

Marriage of Lucas v. Lucas · filed 1986-06-24subd. 1

However, given the potential dangers to the children’s best interests, it is not within the broad discretion of the trial court to unconditionally permit the removal without a more careful study of the circumstances of the parents and children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, permits a custody award that preserves a child’s bond with the primary caretaker when the evidence supports that placement as being in the child’s best interests.

Stein v. Timmons · filed 1986-09-02(1)

The trial court concluded that it was in the best interest of the child to maintain the child’s bond with its primary caretaker. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984). Because the trial court’s findings regarding custody are supported by the evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in granting respondent custody of the minor child.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, permits consideration of which parent has been the primary parent when deciding a child’s best interests, but that factor is not determinative when the child can express a preference.

Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl · filed 1986-10-28subd. 1

These comments indicate that the trial court did not make its decision based solely on a presumption that the primary parent should be the custodial parent but rather used this as one factor when considering all the factors under section 518.17, subd. 1. Consideration of which parent has been the primary parent is not determinative where a child is able to express a preference.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(b), permits a court to discount a child’s expressed custody preference when coaching makes it unreliable.

Marriage of Schwamb v. Schwamb · filed 1986-11-10(1)(b)

Under Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b) the trial court may consider a child’s “reasonable preference.” In the present case the trial court found that the preferences expressed by the children had been encouraged and prompted by appellant, and therefore it did not defer to their expressed preference. In addition, the son at one point expressed a preference to live with his father. There is evidence in the record to support a finding that the children had been coached and that their expressed preferences were not reliable.

A child's preference is one factor in deciding custody, but it does not control the placement decision.

Marriage of Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz · filed 1987-08-11(1)(b)

The preference of a minor child, however, is only one factor to consider in determining custodial placement, see Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b) (1986), and the decision whether to interview a child to ascertain a preference is within the trial court’s discretion.

A child's expressed custody preference should not be considered under the best-interests factors when the child is too young to express a reasonable preference.

Marriage of Sucher v. Sucher · filed 1987-12-08(1)

Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1, lists the relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the court in determining the "best interests of the child." ... Here the children were ages 4, 6, and 7 at the time of trial. While the trial court interviewed each child in camera, the court made no express finding as to whether any of the children was old enough to express a reasonable preference. The oldest child did not exhibit significant maturity, and it appears that Nicholas may have coached the children before the interviews. In these circumstances, the trial court should not have considered the expressed preferences of the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3 requires consideration of a child’s best interests in custody decisions even when the parties have not disputed custody, at least where there is no evidence of their mutual wishes.

Rigwald v. Rigwald · filed 1988-05-10(3)

First, the law governing judicial custody decisions is not conditioned upon the disputations of the parties, at least where, as here, there is no evidence of the couple’s mutual wishes. See Minn.Stat. §§ 518.17, subd. 3 (1986); 260.191, subd. 1(a) (1986).

Section 518.17 best interests factors may be considered in a custody modification after an initial finding of endangerment.

Marriage of Keith v. Keith · filed 1988-09-20

The trial court's findings under section 518.17 were properly made, because the court had first found the initial requirement of endangerment before considering the best interests of the child.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires courts to evaluate the child’s best interests when deciding custody, including factors bearing on the child’s stability.

LaValle v. LaValle · filed 1988-10-11(1)

The statute defines relevant factors which are to be evaluated by the court. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (Supp.1987). ... The trial court here concluded it was in the best interests of the children that David be awarded custody. It considered the statutory factors. The factors which tipped the balance in David’s favor were Connie’s chemical dependency, and that the children, who had resided with David since October 1985, had achieved psychological and emotional stability there. ... We cannot say that under the facts of this case it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award custody of the children to David.

Section 518.17 requires a court to weigh a parent's past sexual abuse of another child against the other custody factors when deciding the child's best interests.

Holmberg v. Holmberg · filed 1995-03-28(1)

The trial court had the obligation to balance respondent's record of sexually abusing another child 10 years earlier against the other factors indicating that respondent was the more appropriate custodial parent. Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to place custody of C.H. with respondent, notwithstanding his record of abuse.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, supplies best-interests factors for custody decisions, including the effect of changes to a child’s home, school, and community.

Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins · filed 2024-06-17(1)

The district court then evaluated whether a modification of custody was warranted by discussing each of the 12 best-interests factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 518.17 subd. 1 (2022). ... The district court discussed the best interests of the child given the “effect on the child’s well-being and development of changes to home, school, and community.” The district court concluded that “[a]ny significant changes, including a change of custody to mother and the child’s subsequent schooling and social life will undeniably disrupt the child’s life and his well-being.” Thus, the district court’s finding that this factor favors father maintaining custody is supported by the record.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, lists the factors used to determine a child’s best interests in a custody decision.

In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Burton · filed 2016-04-04subd. 1

The best interests of the child are determined using the factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (2014). ... The district court’s findings are supported by the record. The GAL addressed these best-interests factors in detail. The GAL’s analysis and recommendations support the district court’s conclusion that the best-interests factors favor a custody modification.

Section 518.17 gives trial courts broad discretion to evaluate the evidence when awarding child custody.

Drew v. Drew · filed 1976-07-16subd. 1(a), (b)

We find nothing in the record to support petitioner’s contention that such a conclusion was an abuse of discretion. The trial court was well within its broad discretion in evaluating the evidence and in awarding custody.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 makes the child’s best interests the ultimate test in custody decisions.

Berndt v. Berndt · filed 1980-04-11subd. 1

The parties accept the principle that the ultimate test in all custody cases is the best interests of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1976); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 249 N.W.2d 168 (1976); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 207 N.W.2d 291 (1973). We agree with the three-judge district court panel that the best interests of Nichole Berndt will be served by placing custody with her mother, Leona Evelyn Berndt.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), lists best-interests factors; a parenting-time modification does not require findings on every factor.

Weiss v. Griffin · filed 2016-10-24(1)(a)

This is consistent with the fact that, generally, modification of parenting time is governed by Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5(a), which does not require the district court to make findings on all of the best-interests factors in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, directs courts to determine child custody by the child’s best interests using nine listed factors.

Marriage of Flinck v. Flinck · filed 1984-07-17subd. 1

Here, the trial court stated it made the custody determination based on the best interest of the child as determined by application of the nine factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1982). Since the court based its decision on the appropriate statutory provision and since there is evidence in the record, including testimony of Robin’s relationship with the child and Robin’s home study, supporting the court’s determination, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(c), makes a child’s interactions with a person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests a relevant custody factor.

Simonson v. Simonson · filed 1980-04-18subd. 1(c)

Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion and hold that it was clearly not in the best interests of this three-year-old child to remain in the respondent’s home. We find support for our decision in Minn.Stat. § 518.18(c) (1978), which authorizes a change in custody where “the child’s present environment may endanger his physical or emotional health or impair his emotional development,” and Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(c) (1978), which includes as a relevant factor in considering custody “The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests.”

Section 518.17 requires a proposed move out of state to be weighed as a factor in deciding custody.

Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel · filed 1984-10-09

The court should have treated the proposed move as simply another factor to balance in determining who should have custody under Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1982).

A minor child’s reasonable custody preference is one factor to consider in a custody dispute.

Madgett v. Madgett · filed 1985-01-081(b)

The reasonable preference of a minor child regarding custody is one factor to consider in custody disputes. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b) (1982).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires courts evaluating a child’s best interests to consider all relevant factors, including family relationships, the proposed home, and the health and caregiving ability of those involved.

Marriage of Corwin v. Corwin · filed 1985-04-16subd. 1

Child abuse reflects adversely on the mother’s mental health and on her ability to deal with the child’s sexual development. Living with the mother physically and emotionally endangered the child. In contrast, there was no substantial evidence relating to the adverse impact of the proposed custodial home. These factors prominently weigh in favor of the court’s decision to change custody.

Section 518.17 makes the preservation of a child’s relationships a significant factor in assessing the child’s best interests.

Marriage of Otava v. Otava · filed 1985-09-17subd. 1(c), (e)

The move would seriously impair visitation contacts with the boy’s father, and it would require the child to sacrifice an important relationship with his brother. The preservation of the child’s relationships is a significant factor in assessing the child’s best interests. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(c), (e) (1984).

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to reflect consideration of the relevant best interests factors.

Marriage of Jones v. Jones · filed 1985-11-19subd. 1

The trial court’s findings as a whole must reflect that the trial court has considered the relevant factors of § 518.17, subd. 1. ... Viewing all the evidence, the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that the best interests of Jennifer and Jason were served by placing their custody with Joan. Rather, their best interests are served by their continued custody with Gary.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires custody findings to show that the court considered the statutory best-interests factors relevant to the case.

Ryan v. Ryan · filed 1986-09-30subd. 1

The trial court made specific findings on eight of the nine factors, (a)-(h), relevant to the custody determination in this case. ... “It is sufficient if the findings as a whole reflect that the trial court has taken statutory factors into consideration, in so far as they are relevant, in reaching its decision.”

Section 518.17 requires courts deciding custody to consider a child’s reasonable preference and relationship with siblings.

Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz · filed 1986-03-11subd. 1

The evidence also showed a strong bond between the two children, a fact which must be considered. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17 subd. 1(c). On the basis of the children’s preference, their inability to get along with appellant, and their desire to remain together, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding respondent custody of the children.

Section 518.17 requires courts deciding custody to consider the children’s racial and cultural heritage.

Tubwon v. Weisberg · filed 1986-10-21subd. 1

The trial court examined the children’s cultural heritage and made specific findings on this important consideration as required by Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1®. The court found that “[b]oth parties seek to expose the children [to] and educate them with respect to these different cultures.” We believe due weight was accorded the children’s racial and cultural needs.

Subdivision 1’s custody factors can support a custody award even when the children’s stated preference is disregarded.

Marriage of Nixon v. Nixon · filed 1987-08-18(1)

We believe these additional factors in and of themselves are sufficient to support the custody determination. ... The children had lived in a stable, satisfactory environment for many years. Maintaining that continuity and stability was important. The permanence of the family unit was strengthened at the custodial home more consistently than at Forbort’s home. Finally, the court noted respondent’s capacity and disposition to give the children love, affection, and guidance, and to continue their education and nurture. This contrasts with appellant’s dedication to ministering extensively to the needs of Forbort. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. We conclude that the record substantiates the trial court’s decision even when all reference to the children’s preference is disregarded.

Section 518.17 sets out factors for determining child custody.

Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso · filed 1988-01-05

In this case, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm its custody determination. The trial court found that respondent was the primary parent of the minor child. This finding has ample support in the record. Further, the trial court addressed the specific factors set forth in Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1986).

When neither parent is the primary caretaker, custody is determined by the child’s best interests under subdivision 1, including the child’s relationships and stability.

Marriage of Regenscheid v. Regenscheid · filed 1986-11-04(1)

Inquiring into other indicia of parental fitness, the trial court addressed each factor under Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1, particularly emphasizing factors (c)-(h): ... The record supports the trial court’s findings and in awarding respondent custody, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Section 518.17 makes the child’s best interests the guiding standard for custody decisions, including consideration of a child’s preference when the child is mature enough to express one.

Marriage of Mowers v. Mowers · filed 1987-05-26subd. 1

The guiding principle in all custody cases is the best interests of the child. ... In view of Cinda’s preference and the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Cinda’s best interests are served by awarding respondent physical custody.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires custody to be decided according to the child's best interests, including the child's relationships and continuity of care.

Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow · filed 1987-12-18subd. 1

Because the court erred in determining that Robert Sefkow was Laura's primary parent, the Pikula primary parent preference does not arise and the determination of Laura's custody must be based on other indicia of the child's best interests. See Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 714 (when no preference arises, the court must limit its inquiry to other indicia of parental fitness, under the guiding principle in all custody cases of the best interest of the child); Regenscheid v. Regenscheid, 395 N.W.2d 375, 379 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (other indicia of parental fitness are addressed in Minnesota Statutes § 518.17, subdivision 1, which lists factors relevant to the best interest of the child), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 1986). In Laura's case, relying particularly on the importance of her sibling relationship with Joanna, we conclude that Laura's best interests mandate that her custody also be awarded to Paula Sefkow.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires written custody findings that show consideration of the relevant best interest factors, but the findings need not address every factor.

Marriage of Whitmore v. Fischer · filed 1986-12-09subd. 1

A trial court is not bound to consider every “best interest” factor. Rather, it is “sufficient if the findings as a whole reflect that the trial court has taken the statutory factors into consideration, in so far as they are relevant, in reaching its decision.”

Subdivision 1 bars consideration of a proposed custodian’s conduct unless it affects the custodian’s relationship with the child.

Marriage of Stenzel v. Stenzel · filed 1987-02-24(1)

In making a custody determination “[t]he court shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect his [or her] relationship to the child.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984). The evidence did not establish that Jane’s choice of a housemate affected her parenting ability or her relationship with the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, identifies factors used to assess a child’s best interests in a visitation dispute.

Kuebelbeck v. Humphrey · filed 1987-03-10(1)

Factors indicating the best interests of a child are enumerated in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984). These factors include the child’s interrelationships with others, preferences of the child and parents, the health of the persons involved, and the capacity of each parent to give the child love and guidance. ... The trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence in the record, and the trial court considered the appropriate statutory factors.

Section 518.17 treats parents’ hostility and inability to make joint decisions in their child’s best interest as relevant custody factors.

Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson · filed 1987-04-14subd. 1(c) and (g)

The court noted the “unusually bitter and hostile” attitudes between the parties and expressed strong concerns that they would be unable to make joint decisions in their daughter’s best interest. This is a “relevant factor” under Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(c) and (g) (1984).

Section 518.17 prohibits awarding custody to a parent solely because of that parent's sex.

Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke · filed 1987-09-01subd. 8

To grant custody of David to Dick Imdieke just because he is male is a violation of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 8. (The court shall consider the best interests of the child and shall not prefer one parent over the other solely on the basis of the sex of the parent.)

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 permits consideration of a parent's second marriage when it bears on the child's relationships, adjustment to home, or the permanence of the proposed custodial home.

Marriage of Sinsabaugh v. Heinerscheid · filed 1988-08-30subd. 1

In addition, Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 supports consideration of Heinerscheid's second marriage. Factor (c) lists as a relevant factor the child's interaction and interrelationship with "any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests." Factor (d) lists the child's adjustment to his or her "home" as relevant. Moreover, factor (f) focuses upon the permanence of the "proposed custodial home."

A child’s custodial preference is one factor in determining the child’s best interests and does not determine placement by itself.

Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1988-05-31subd. 1(b)

While the oldest child stated that he might like to live with his father if his mother moved away from Red Wing, at no time did he make a statement which can be characterized as a definite preference. What he did express to the trial judge was a definite preference to remain in Red Wing, which is substantially different than indicating that he clearly and unequivocally wished to remain with his father. Even assuming that the oldest child did express a preference to live with his father, that preference is not determinative of final placement and is only one of the factors to be considered in ascertaining a child’s best interests.

Subdivision 1 makes an older child's custody preference a very important factor for the court to consider.

Marriage of Steinke v. Steinke · filed 1988-08-23(1)

The statute is clear that the choice of an older child is a very important factor for the court to consider. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1.

Section 518.17 makes a child's reasonable preference a relevant best interests factor when the child is old enough to express one, including in a grandparent visitation decision.

In Re Santoro · filed 1999-06-03(1)(2)

An additional best interests factor is relevant in this case: "the reasonable preferences of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express [a] preference." Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(2) (1998).

In deciding a child’s best interests, a court may give decisive weight to a parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Marriage of Randall v. Steward · filed 1988-07-05subd. 1(h)

The court clearly considered factors (a)-(g) and (i) — (j) relating to best interests of the children. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. The court’s findings that none of these factors tipped the balance in favor of either parent was supported by the evidence. ... The trial court’s finding as to the capacity of the parties to support one another as parents is rational if not compelling, is supported by the evidence, and is a wholly appropriate exercise of its discretion.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires courts deciding custody to consider all relevant factors affecting a child’s best interests, including psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects of parenting.

Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow · filed 1988-07-15subd. 1

However, the statute mandates a multifaceted inquiry into “all relevant factors,” including psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects of the parenting role. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1.

Subdivision 1 directs courts to consider the child’s best interests and evaluate ten relevant factors when deciding custody.

In Re the Marriage of McCabe v. McCabe · filed 1988-11-01subd. 1

Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (Supp. 1987) provides that in custody determinations the court shall consider “the best interests of the child.” The statute lists ten relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the trial court.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), supplies the best interests factors used to decide a child's primary residence.

Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers · filed 1993-11-19subd. 1(a)

The trial court made detailed findings with regard to the best interests factors contained in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a). After examining the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to those findings, ... we conclude that the record adequately supports the findings of the trial court that the best interests of the minor children will be served by maintaining joint legal and joint physical custody in both parties, with the primary residence of the children to remain in Minnesota with petitioner/appellant Douglas Ayers.

Section 518.17 makes a child’s ethnic heritage a factor in determining the child’s best interests, but does not make it controlling.

In Re the Custody of M.A.L. · filed 1990-06-19subd. 1(h)-(i)

The legislature has seen fit to make such a consideration part of the factors used in evaluating the best interests of the child under ch. 518. ... If the legislature had wanted it to be the controlling factor, it could have so provided.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(5), includes a child's relationships with parents and siblings among the factors used to determine the child's best interests in custody.

In Re Weber · filed 2002-12-10subd. 1(5)

For example, the GAL's discomfort with the fact that Weber continued to involve W.P.W. in the details of the custody and dissolution, contrary to the court's order, weighs against the best-interests factor considering "the interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents [and] siblings." Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(5).

Involving a child in custody litigation weighs against the best-interests factor concerning the child’s relationships with parents and siblings.

Dalbec v. W.P.W. · filed 2002-12-10subd. 1(5)

The GAL’s discomfort with the fact that Weber continued to involve W.P.W. in the details of the custody and dissolution, contrary to the court’s order, weighs against the best-interests factor considering “the interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents [and] siblings.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(5).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires courts to consider the best interests factors without using one factor to the exclusion of all others.

Custody of the Child of Williams v. Carlson · filed 2005-08-02(1)(a)

A district court “may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd 1(a) (2004). ... When viewing the record in the light most favorable to the district courts findings, we conclude that the findings supporting the award of sole physical custody of J.J.W. to respondent are not clearly erroneous and that the courts decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 518.17 includes the mental and physical health of all involved in assessing a child’s best interests; emotional endangerment weighs against finding those interests met.

Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen · filed 2005-09-06subd. 1(9)

One best-interests factor includes “the mental and physical health of all individuals involved.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(9) (2004). If a child’s emotional well-being is endangered, her best interests are clearly not being met.

Section 518.17 makes a child’s religion a consideration in determining the child’s best interests.

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood · filed 2007-01-021(a)(10)

The child’s religion is now a prominent consideration in shaping his best interests.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires custody awards to reflect the child’s best interests after consideration of all relevant factors, including the statutory factors.

In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Sterling · filed 2015-08-31(a)

A district court’s custody award must be determined by the child’s best interests. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (2014). ... In sum, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its findings with respect to any of the factors that Sterling has challenged on appeal.

The fifth best-interests factor permits consideration of a parent’s partner who may significantly affect the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Newman · filed 2015-12-21subd. 1(a)(5)

The fifth best-interests factor allows the district court to consider the interaction and interrelationship of a person who may significantly affect the children’s best interests, which could reasonably include mother’s boyfriend.

Section 518.17 requires the court to consider the applicable best-interests factors when deciding custody.

In re the Marriage of: Moslais X. Vue v. Vue · filed 2015-02-09(1)(a)

The findings demonstrate that the district court considered all of the appropriate factors required by Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2014).

Section 518.17 allows courts to consider school programming and transportation logistics when evaluating a child’s best interests.

In re the Matter of: Jesse Eugene Schultz v. Christie Jo Ruff · filed 2015-08-10(1)(a)

But “‘[t]he best interests of the child’ means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated by the court,” including 13 specific factors identified in the statute. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2014). The parties stipulated to consideration of criteria related to school quality, and the only criterion found by the district court to favor Otsego was the wider range of diversified programming offered, which was relevant to the children’s best interests. The district court considered location as related to the logistics of getting the children to school, which also was relevant to their best interests.

Section 518.17’s best-interests factors must be evaluated when a parent requests additional parenting time to provide child care while the other parent works.

In re the Marriage of: Jacob Anthony Pulsifer v. Pulsifer · filed 2015-12-28(1)

Thus, when considering a request for additional parenting time for child care under section 518.175, subdivision 8, the district court must evaluate the best-interests factors set forth in section 518.17, subdivision 1 (2014).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), does not allow a court to treat one best-interests factor as dispositive.

In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. and S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Vo · filed 2014-08-04subd. 1(a)

“[t]he court may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others,” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), and therefore none of the best-interests factors is dispositive.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), prohibits a court from using one best-interest factor to the exclusion of all others.

In re the Marriage of: Melissa Jo Butler v. Butler · filed 2015-05-04subd. 1(a)

Moreover, while appellant places great emphasis on one of the factors, namely R.B.’s mental and physical well-being, section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), clearly states that “[t]he court may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others.” Here, the evidence supports the conclusion that by living with respondent, R.B. will continue to have a healthy bond and relationship with his other siblings who reside with respondent.

Section 518.17 directs courts assessing a child’s best interests to consider a parent’s chemical health issue when it affects the child’s safety or developmental needs.

Waguespack v. Merz · filed 2016-01-19(1)(a)

When determining a child’s best interests, courts consider any physical, mental, or chemical health issue a parent may experience that affects the child’s safety or developmental needs. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2014). Waguespack does not allege that Merz’s relapse and treatment had any effect on S.A.M.

Section 518.17 requires consideration of a child’s reasonable custody preference when the child is sufficiently able to express one; parental pressure may prevent a child from stating a reasonable preference.

In re the Marriage of: Nathan Francis Gregor v. Dawn Marie Buttera Gregor · filed 2016-02-08subd. 1(a)(2)

Under the statute in effect when the district court issued its decision, the court was required to evaluate “the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(2) (2012). ... The district court did not err in finding that B.G. was unable to state a reasonable preference on custody.

Section 518.17 requires a court to consider a child’s reasonable custodial preference if the child is sufficiently able, old, and mature to express an independent, reliable preference.

In Re The Matter of: Pamela Annette Bowman v. Wieczorek · filed 2017-01-30subd. 1(a)(3)

In determining the best interests of a child, a district court must consider “the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient ability, age, and maturity to express an independent, reliable preference.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(3).

Section 518.17 requires consideration of a child’s reasonable preference when the child is sufficiently able and mature to express an independent, reliable preference.

In re the Marriage of: Valentin Arkadievich Povarchuk v. Rebecca Joyce Povarchuk, ... · filed 2024-03-11subd. 1(a)(3)

When considering the best interests of a child for purposes of determining custody and parenting time, the district court must consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including “the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient ability, age, and maturity to express an independent, reliable preference.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd.1(a)(3) (2022); ... Father has not shown that the district court misapplied the law or abused its discretion by requiring the parties to consider the child’s preference in setting a parenting-time schedule.

Section 518.17 requires a court to consider a child’s reasonable custody preference when the child can express an independent, reliable preference.

County of Hennepin v. Christina Elizabeth VonderHaar, James Mark Hedquist, ... · filed 2024-11-18subd. 1(a)(3)

A district court must consider a child’s “reasonable preference,” if it “deems the child to be of sufficient ability, age, and maturity to express an independent, reliable preference.” Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(3). ... On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the children’s preference “cannot be considered” as part of its best-interests analysis.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a)(3), requires the court to consider a child’s preference if the court finds the child able to express an independent, reliable preference.

In Re the Custody of: A. A. S., Karryn Colleen Schwab v. Ryan George Schenck, ... · filed 2026-03-09subd. 1(a)(3)

Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(3). The statute expressly directs the court to decide whether the child can “express an independent, reliable preference.”

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires courts to consider and weigh relevant best-interest factors when deciding whether to modify physical custody.

In re the Marriage of: Nicholas John Kaminski v. Hackett · filed 2016-08-01subd. 1(a)

As the district court considered and weighed multiple factors in deciding whether a modification of physical custody was in W.H.’s best interests, it did not abuse its discretion by considering one best- interest factor to the exclusion of the other factors.

For a parenting-time modification, section 518.17 requires findings on the relevant best-interest factors sufficient for appellate review, rather than findings on every listed factor.

Deidrick v. Dozier · filed 2024-06-17subd. 1(b)(1)

We therefore conclude that our inquiry is not whether the district court made findings on all of the section 518.17 best-interest factors, but rather whether the district court made “sufficient findings to enable appellate review.”

Section 518.17’s domestic-abuse factor applies only when domestic abuse as defined by section 518B.01 has occurred.

In Re the Custody of N.O.K. Jason Michael Krause v. Gomez · filed 2016-11-07(1)(a)(4)

Because the district court did not determine that domestic abuse had occurred, the domestic-abuse factor is not applicable here.

Section 518.17’s domestic-abuse best-interests factor requires a custody court to determine whether a parent committed qualifying sexual abuse; a prior DHS finding on that same issue may have collateral-estoppel effect.

In Re the Custody of: D. T. E. B., DOB 10-27-2013, D'Jilorian D. Baker v. Diona Marie Hargrett,... · filed 2023-12-04(1)(a)(4)

To evaluate the domestic-abuse best-interests factor in this case, the district court therefore had to determine the same issue decided by DHS—whether Baker had sexually abused the child, meaning he engaged in behavior that falls under first- through fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Section 518.17 considers the intimacy of each party’s relationship with the child as a best interests factor; a closer bond from greater access does not necessarily make the factor favor that party.

In re the Matter of: M. J. E. B. v. A. L. n/k/a A. T., E. G., C. L., Below, Ramsey County, intervenor · filed 2016-11-28subd. 1(a)(4)

E.G. argues that the district court erred in its application of the fourth factor: the intimacy of the relationship between each party and the child. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4). ... The evidence demonstrates that, while E.G. may be more bonded with the child due to his opportunity to have more contact with her, both M.B. and E.G. deeply care for the child, and thus it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find that this factor favored neither M.B. nor E.G.

Under the best-interests analysis, a finding that either custody arrangement would cause minimal changes for the child does not favor joint physical custody.

In re the Marriage of: Any K. Arensberg v. Arensberg · filed 2024-01-08(a)(8)

We agree with mother that finding “minimal changes” should not weigh in favor of joint physical custody.

Section 518.17 requires courts deciding a child's best interests to consider the length of time the child has lived in a stable home and the value of continuity of care.

Knutson v. Primeau · filed 1985-07-23subd. 1

In determining the best interests of the child, the court should consider “[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.” ... The trial court gave no consideration to Knutson’s five years as Joseph’s primary caretaker and the desirability of maintaining that continuity.

Section 518.17 requires a custody court to consider the child's primary caretaker when assessing the child's best interests.

Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy · filed 1985-11-12subd. 1

In assessing a child's best interests, a court must consider "all relevant factors," including the nine enumerated factors set out in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. ... Examination of these findings reveals that the trial court's failure to consider the role of the primary caretaker resulted in a decision which the court in Pikula sought to avoid, i.e. one which misapplies the statute by seemingly discriminating against a traditional homemaker.

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to serve the child’s best interests, with primary caretaker status determined from past caregiving rather than personality tests.

Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny · filed 1986-10-14subd. 1

The law determines the fact of primary parenthood from evidence of the past, not on test indicia of negative or positive personality traits.

Section 518.17 requires a finding on the primary caretaker when determining child custody under the best interests standard.

Marriage of Rosen v. Rosen · filed 1986-12-23subd. 1

The trial court erred in determining custody of the children without a finding on the primary caretaker.

Section 518.17 permits courts to consider events through trial when assessing parental fitness for a custody award in the children’s best interests.

Marriage of Kerkhoff v. Kerkhoff · filed 1987-02-10

Clearly, the court should consider all events up to the time of trial in making the determination of parental fitness, since the sole reason for this determination is to make an award of custody which is in the best interests of the children. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17 (1984). Hence, the court did not err in considering events occurring after the parties’ separation in determining the fitness of the mother.

Section 518.17 permits consideration of the permanence of a proposed custodial home when deciding a child’s best interests.

Marriage of Sheeran v. Sheeran · filed 1987-02-24subd. 1

In applying the factors of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, the court considered the permanence of the existing or proposed custodial unit. ... However, the court’s determinations relate to permanency of residency for the minor children. We do not construe them as penalizing the traditional homemaker.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, supports awarding custody to a primary caretaker when the evidence does not establish that parent is unfit.

Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl · filed 1987-10-06subd. 1

The factors to be considered are outlined in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1986) and in Pikula: ... Here, the trial court found respondent was the primary caretaker. ... We hold the trial court properly awarded custody of the children to respondent.

Section 518.17 requires courts to consider all relevant best interests factors when deciding custody; primary caretaker status does not create a presumption in favor of custody.

Rutanen v. Olson · filed 1991-09-24(1)

In 1990 the Minnesota legislature eliminated the presumption that unless deemed unfit, the primary caretaker was to be granted custody, and declared, “The court may not use [the primary parent] factor to the exclusion of all others.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. Here, the trial court properly conducted a complete best interests analysis under section 518.-17.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), prohibits treating primary caretaker status as a presumption when determining a child’s best interests.

Vangsness v. Vangsness · filed 2000-03-21(1)(a)

Moreover, almost immediately after Max-field was issued, the legislature again amended the custody statute, to explicitly state that “[t]he primary caretaker factor may not be used as a presumption in determining the best interests of the child.” 1990 Minn. Laws ch. 574, § 13 (now codified at Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)).

Section 518.17 requires a custody court to give weight to a child's bond with the primary parent when assessing the child's best interests.

Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield · filed 1990-01-19(1)

In discarding the presumption set out in Pikula, the trial court also discarded (or at least severely discounted) the evidence on which that presumption or preference was based, namely, Diane's status as the primary parent. The failure to give any credit for Diane's primary parent status, it seems to us, skews the trial court's best interests analysis.

Section 518.17’s best interests analysis must give proper weight to the primary caretaker’s role when evaluating the custody factors.

Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield · filed 1989-07-12subd. 1

The trial court analyzed the factors contained in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1986), to determine which custody decision would be in the best interests of the children. ... Our examination of the trial court’s findings reveals that the trial court's failure to consider the importance of the primary caretaker’s role when conducting the best interests analysis affected the court’s conclusions on subdivisions 1(c), (d), (e), (f), and (h). Re-examination of these factors, giving proper weight to the primary caretaker presumption, supports our holding that awarding custody of the younger children to appellant is in the children's best interests.

Section 518.17 requires written custody findings that reflect consideration of all relevant statutory factors.

Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz · filed 1984-11-20subds. 1 and 2

The trial court must make written findings which reflect consideration of all the custody decision factors set out in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subds. 1 and 2 (1982).

Section 518.17 does not require a trial court to discuss every listed custody factor when the basis for its decision is clear.

Myhervold v. Myhervold · filed 1978-11-03

Although the trial court did not discuss each factor listed in Minn.St. 518.17, the basis of its decision is clear. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding respondent custody of the children.