Minn.Stat. § 518.17

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to serve the child's best interests and findings to show that the court considered the statutory factors.

Lawver v. Lawver · filed 1985-01-15subds. 1, 3

A child custody decision must be based on the best interests of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3 (1984). When examining the interest of a child, the court must consider factors specified in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984), and its findings must reflect that this has happened. ... Here the findings fail to address the best interests of the children.

Section 518.17 requires custody findings, taken as a whole, to reflect consideration of the relevant statutory factors; the court need not address each factor separately.

Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter · filed 1985-05-07

In making such a determination the court must consider the factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 518.17. However, the court need not address each factor specifically. It is sufficient that the findings as a whole reflect that the trial court has taken the statutory factors into consideration, insofar as they are relevant.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires a custody court to consider the listed best-interest factors and make findings reflecting that consideration.

Marriage of Evens v. Evens · filed 1985-11-26subd. 1

A court must consider the best interests of the child by examining the specific factors set out in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. A trial court’s findings must reflect consideration of these factors.

Section 518.17 requires trial courts to consider statutory custody factors and make particular findings supporting a custody award.

Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow · filed 1985-11-26

There are a number of statutory factors that a trial court considers when making a custody decision. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subds. 1, 2. The trial court’s recitation of these factors does not satisfy the supreme court’s mandate that findings be “set forth with a high degree of particularity.”

Section 518.17 requires particularized findings about a child’s best interests when those interests bear on a custody modification.

Bjerke v. Wilcox · filed 1986-04-01subds. 1, 3

One of those standards, the need for modification judged by reference to the child’s best interests, requires particularized findings under Minn.Stat. § 518.17.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, directs courts to decide custody based on the child’s best interests using nine criteria.

Marriage of Storlien v. Storlien · filed 1986-05-13(1)

Under Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984), the test for determining who should receive custody of a minor child is the “best interests of the child” test. That subdivision contains nine criteria which should be considered by the court when determining the best interests of the child.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires custody findings to show consideration of the relevant best interest factors, but does not require a finding on every factor.

Marriage of Jorschumb v. Jorschumb · filed 1986-07-15subd. 1

A trial court is not required to address every "best interest" factor, rather, "[i]t 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." Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. at 83, 249 N.W.2d at 171-72. Although the findings sufficiently incorporate the criteria in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, we must further determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making findings unsupported by the evidence and ultimately in awarding custody to the mother.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires a custody court to consider the statutory best-interest factors, and detailed written findings can show that it did so.

Marriage of Petersen v. Petersen · filed 1986-10-21(1)

The court made detailed written findings reflecting proper consideration of the factors set forth in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1.

Section 518.17 requires findings to support a child custody award, including an award entered by default.

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

The default judgment here involved not property, as the Lindberg judgment did, but instead involved the grant of custody of a child without making any of the findings required under Minn.Stat. § 518.17 and Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn.1985).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires written custody findings showing that the court considered the relevant best-interests factors.

Marriage of Gillis v. Gillis · filed 1987-02-17subd. 1

In making a custody determination, a trial court must make written findings reflecting its consideration of the relevant “best interests” factors of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 does not require separate findings on every custody factor if the findings as a whole show that the court considered the relevant factors.

Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson · filed 1987-07-07subd. 1

Regarding the section 518.17 factors, the court implicitly applied those factors in its discussion. The court need not make specific findings as long as the findings as a whole reflect that relevant statutory factors were considered.

Section 518.17 requires custody decisions to consider all relevant best interest factors, including the children’s preferences when they can express them.

Marriage of Smith v. Smith · filed 1988-06-21subds. 1 and 3

A determination of child custody must be based on the best interests of the child, requiring consideration of “all relevant factors” enumerated by statute. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subds. 1 and 3 (1986). ... The trial court’s findings are also insufficient to award primary custody to Mr. Smith under the best interest criteria provided by statute.

Section 518.17 directs courts to consider the statutory best-interest factors and explain how they support a custody placement.

Marriage of Gibson v. Gibson · filed 1991-06-11subd. 1

The court considered all of the best interest factors defined by the statute and disclosed cogent reasons for preferring placement of the child with respondent.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1 requires courts to consider all relevant best interests factors and make sufficient findings to support a custody decision.

Klecker v. Klecker · filed 1990-04-10subd. 1

While application of the best interests analysis under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 was proper, the trial court failed to make sufficient findings under this statute to support its decision. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s custody order and remand for additional findings.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires detailed findings on each relevant best interests factor and an explanation of how those factors support the custody decision.

Rogge v. Rogge · filed 1993-12-07subd. 1(a)

In determining the child's best interests, a trial court must consider "all relevant factors," including the 12 factors defined by statute. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (1992) (the court must make detailed findings on each factor and explain how the factors led to its best interest determination). Here, the trial court did not address each relevant statutory factor.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires consideration of its listed factors when determining a child's best interests.

Silbaugh v. Silbaugh · filed 1996-02-16(a)

Furthermore, it was based on limited information and specifically did not address the factors of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (1994), which must be considered in determining the best interests of the child. Because of the inadequacies of the report, the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to consider it.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires courts to consider the statutory best-interest factors when deciding custody.

Jw v. Cm · filed 2001-05-22(a)

Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), governs custody disputes and enumerates 13 "best interests" factors that district courts must consider when making a custody determination.

Section 518.17 requires courts to weigh all best-interests factors when deciding custody; a parent's attempt to alienate a child from the other parent does not automatically bar that parent from custody.

Marriage of Lemcke v. Lemcke · filed 2001-04-03subd. 1(a)

The legislature has expressly stated that no single factor is determinative. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (“The court may not use one factor to the exclusion of all others.”) Instead, the court must weigh all statutory factors in the balance.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, permits findings that implicitly address the required factors to support an award of joint legal custody over a party’s objection.

In re the Matter of: Ronald Lee Kish v. Wirth · filed 2014-07-14(2)

Although “we would prefer more particularized findings,” Nies v. Nies, 407 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Minn. App. 1987), on the district court’s consideration of the first three statutory factors required under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2, the district court addressed them implicitly. Therefore, its findings are sufficient to support its ruling that Wirth did not rebut the statutory presumption in favor of joint legal custody.

Section 518.17 requires custody findings that explain how the best-interests factors support the custody award.

In re the Marriage of: Anne Elizabeth Castle-Heaney v. Heaney · filed 2014-09-22subd. 1

When examining the best interests of a child, the district court must consider the relevant factors specified in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (2012). ... While the district court listed the best-interests-of-the-child factors and made some relevant factual findings as to each factor, the district court’s order failed to state how consideration of the best-interests factors impacted its decision or explain why it awarded Anne, rather than Bruce, sole physical custody of the minor children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1, requires detailed findings on the child’s best interests factors when a court resolves a custody question, including a dispute over school choice.

In re the Matter of: Brian Hirabayashi v. Chantha Sorn, County of Dakota, intervenor · filed 2015-06-29(1)

Both statutory law and caselaw emphasize the necessity for a district court, when resolving custody questions, to make detailed findings of fact addressing the child’s best interests. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (stating that the district court “must make detailed findings on each of the [best-interests] factors and explain how the factors led to its conclusions and to the determination of the best interests of the child”) (emphasis added); Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15(a) (2014) (stating that “‘[m]ust’ is mandatory”); Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267, 187 N.W.2d 627, 631 (1971) (stating that “it is especially important that the basis for the district court’s [custody-related] decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate review is to be meaningful”).

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), sets out custody best-interest factors that a court need not address when restricting parenting time under section 518.175.

In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Arend · filed 2015-09-14(1)(a)

But the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1, does not require the court to make findings regarding the best-interests factors in Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), which addresses custody, rather than parenting time.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires a custody court to make detailed findings on each best-interests factor and explain how those factors support its custody determination.

Marriage of Reed v. Albaaj · filed 2006-10-24(a)

The district court must consider the children’s best interests in making a custody determination; it must make detailed findings on each of the best-interests factors listed in section 518.17, subdivision 1, and explain how application of these factors led to its conclusions and to its determination of the best interests of the children. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2004).

Section 518.17 requires courts deciding custody to balance all relevant best-interests factors and make detailed findings explaining their determination.

Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer · filed 2013-02-19subd. 1(a)

To determine the child’s best interests, the district court must consider and balance all relevant factors, including 13 statutorily enumerated factors. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (listing best-interests factors). The district court may not rely on one factor to the exclusion of the others and must make detailed findings regarding each factor, explaining how they led to its conclusions and its determination of the child’s best interests.

Section 518.17 permits shorthand summaries of best-interests factors when the court makes thorough factual findings and explains how they support its custody decision.

In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Rucker · filed 2016-12-271(b)(1)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by making its shorthand summaries because the district court complied with the statute by making thorough findings of fact and explaining how these findings led to its conclusions.

Section 518.17 requires detailed findings on each best-interests factor and an explanation of how each factor affected the custody and parenting-time determination.

In re the Marriage of: Bridget Kathleen Corrigan, f/k/a Bridget Kathleen Schmidt v. Schmidt · filed 2017-01-17(b)(1)

The district court’s failure to make adequate findings of fact under Minn. Stat. § 518.17 is an error of law, resulting in an abuse of discretion regarding the questions of custody and parenting time presented to the district court for decision.

Section 518.17 requires detailed findings on each best-interests factor; findings addressing all twelve factors were sufficiently detailed here.

In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Mohamed · filed 2024-05-20subd. 1(b)(1)

The district court expressly addressed each of the 12 factors and made findings with respect to each. The district court’s findings on the best-interests are sufficiently detailed.

Section 518.17 requires detailed findings explaining how each best-interests factor leads to the custody and parenting-time decision.

In re the Marriage of: Joseph Ming Klimmek v. Klimmek · filed 2026-03-02(b)(1)

For each of the statutory best-interests factors, the district court must provide “detailed findings . . . and explain how each factor led to [the district court’s] conclusions and to the determination of custody and parenting time.” ... To the extent that mother’s argument may be construed as a challenge to the district court’s analysis of the best-interests factors, the district court’s findings are sufficiently detailed to support its custody and parenting-time determinations.

Section 518.17 requires a district court assessing children’s best interests to consider all relevant factors and make detailed findings, including findings on 12 listed factors.

In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Smith · filed 2026-02-02subd. 1(a), (b)(1)

When assessing the children’s best interests, a district court must consider and make detailed findings on “all relevant factors,” including 12 statutorily enumerated factors. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a), (b)(1) (2024). ... In sum, mother has not demonstrated that the district court adopted father’s proposed findings verbatim or abused its discretion in deciding to award father the parenting time he requested.

Section 518.17 does not require findings on every best interests factor for insubstantial parenting time modifications or clarifications.

In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Todnem · filed 2017-02-13subd. 1(a)–(b)

We believe that the language of Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)–(b), does not abrogate the principle, rooted deeply in our caselaw, that decisions regarding insubstantial modifications or clarifications of parenting time are within the district court’s discretion and need not be supported by particularized findings on all of the statute’s best interests factors.

Section 518.17, subdivision 1(a), requires a court deciding parenting time to consider all relevant best-interests factors and make findings showing it did so.

Christensen v. Healey · filed 2017-07-03(1)(a)

Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) *581(2016), provides that “[i]n evaluating the best interests of the child for purposes of determining issues of ... parenting time, the court must consider and evaluate all relevant factors.” Absent any findings showing at least some consideration of the child’s best interests, remand is necessary for the district court to make findings required for appellate review.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate; joint custody should not be used to force cooperation.

Chapman v. Chapman · filed 1984-07-03(2)

Although ideally the parents should make major decisions concerning their children jointly, joint legal custody should not be used as a “legal baseball bat” to coerce cooperation, as advocated by the father’s attorney.

Section 518.17(2) requires consideration of whether parents can cooperate before awarding joint legal custody; their individual fitness alone does not support the award.

Marriage of Heard v. Heard · filed 1984-07-17(2)

Evidence in the case fails to support the finding that joint legal custody was in the best interests of the children. The court did not make specific findings on any of the § 518.17(2) factors, possibly because the parties were primarily litigating on the basis of one-parent custody. The findings of the court only state that the parents are equally qualified to raise the children, not that they are qualified to raise the children jointly.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires findings addressing the joint custody factors when legal custody changes from sole to joint, even if physical custody does not change.

Marriage of Bjorke v. Bjorke · filed 1984-09-04(2)

A change solely in legal custody requires the court to make specific findings of fact pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d) (1982), as applicable, and Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1982).

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, directs courts considering joint custody to consider parental cooperation, ways to resolve disputes, and whether sole parental authority would harm the child.

Andersen v. Andersen · filed 1985-01-15(2)

The threshold question is whether circumstances justified modification from joint to sole custody. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1982), sets forth factors to consider when joint custody is sought: (a) the ability of parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children; (b) methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents’ willingness to use those methods; and (c) whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing. It is abundantly clear that joint custody was not appropriate in this case.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate, methods for resolving disputes, and whether sole custody would harm the children.

Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1985-02-26(2)

The trial court declined to grant joint custody because it found a lack of communication between the parties. The statute provides that where either joint legal or joint physical custody is contemplated or sought, the court should consider the ability of the parents to cooperate, methods for dispute resolution, and whether sole custody would be detrimental to the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts to consider its factors when joint legal custody is sought or contemplated.

Marriage of Estby v. Estby · filed 1985-07-30(2)

Where joint legal custody is contemplated or sought, the factors set forth in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1984) must be considered.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires consideration of its joint custody factors and a finding that joint custody serves the children’s best interests.

Ozenna v. Parmelee · filed 1985-11-26subd. 2

Joint custody may not be ordered absent specific consideration of Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2, as well as the finding that this arrangement is in the best interests of the children.

Section 518.17’s requirements for joint custody are no longer satisfied when the parents cannot cooperate in raising their child.

Meier v. Connelly · filed 1985-12-10

Since the entry of the said Judgment and Decree, the circumstances of the parties have changed in that they are unable to cooperate in the rearing of their child, and requirements to support an award of joint custody as provided in Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.17 are no longer satisfied. ... This finding was not clearly erroneous.

Section 518.17 does not permit joint legal custody when the parents cannot cooperate in raising their children.

Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman · filed 1986-02-18(2)

For these reasons, we hold that trial court abused its discretion in making a custody award that in substance amounts to joint legal custody when the court specifically found that William and Shirley do not possess the ability to cooperate in the rearing of their children.

When deciding whether to award joint custody, a court considers the parents’ ability to cooperate; one parent’s opposition can undermine the cooperation needed for joint decisions.

Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter · filed 1986-03-04subd. 2

This court has generally recognized that one parent’s opposition to joint custody undermines the cooperation necessary for joint custodial decisions. ... The Wolters clearly have problems communicating. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give them joint custody of the children.

When joint custody is sought, section 518.17 requires the court to consider additional factors concerning the parents' ability to cooperate in parenting decisions.

Justis v. Justis · filed 1986-03-25(2)

When joint custody is sought, the court must consider, in addition to the factors of Minn.Stat. § 518.17(1) (1984), the factors specified in Minn.Stat. § 518.17(2) (1984): These factors deal with the ability of parents to relate cooperatively in parenting decisions and bear mostly on the award of joint legal custody; joint legal custody is defined as the equal participation of parents in decisions on the upbringing of a child. ... Evidence on each of the factors was presented to the trial court. The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that sole legal and physical custody rest with respondent.

Section 518.17 requires courts to consider parental cooperation, methods for resolving disputes, and the effect of sole authority before ordering joint custody; it does not require joint physical custody.

Brauer v. Brauer · filed 1986-04-08(2)

The courts may order joint legal custody or joint physical custody only after considering: (a) The ability of parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children; (b) Methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents’ willingness to use those methods; and (c) Whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1984). ... Joint physical custody cannot be compelled as a matter of law.

When joint custody is sought, subdivision 2 requires consideration of parental cooperation, methods for resolving disputes, and whether sole authority would harm the child.

Marriage of Graham v. Graham · filed 1986-05-13subd. 2

The factors to be considered in an award of joint custody, in addition to the best interests of the child, Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1 (1984), are found in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1984): ... In addition to the factors listed in subdivision 1, where either joint legal or joint physical custody is contemplated or sought, the court shall consider the following relevant factors: ... (a) The ability of parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children; ... (b) Methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents’ willingness to use those methods; and ... (c) Whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate, whether custody would be joint physical or joint legal custody.

Marriage of Tuma v. Tuma · filed 1986-06-17(2)

Courts may grant joint custody only after considering, among other factors, “the ability of the parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1984). The factors listed in the statute apply to joint physical, as well as joint legal custody.

Section 518.17 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate, their methods for resolving disputes, and whether sole authority would harm the child.

Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson · filed 1986-09-23(2)

The court must consider the factors contained in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1, and when joint custody is contemplated the court must consider the additional factors contained in Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2. The factors to consider when joint custody is contemplated include the ability of the parents to cooperate in raising the children, the existence of methods for resolving major disputes concerning the child, the parents’ willingness to use those dispute resolution methods, and whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent alone were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing.

Section 518.17 requires courts considering joint legal custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate, resolve major decisions, and avoid harm from giving one parent sole authority.

Marriage of Barrett v. Barrett · filed 1986-10-14(2)

Furthermore, where joint legal custody is sought, three additional factors must be considered: “(a) The ability of [the] parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children, (b) Methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents’ willingness to use those methods, and (c) Whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing.” ... Consideration of these factors reveals no evidence to justify denial of joint legal custody.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2(a), precludes joint legal or physical custody when the parents do not cooperate.

Marriage of Greenlaw v. Greenlaw · filed 1986-11-10(2)(a)

In addition, the statutory standards preclude the use of either joint physical or joint legal custody if the parties do not cooperate. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2(a) (1984).

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate in parenting decisions.

Ozenna v. Parmelee · filed 1987-06-09(2)

Moreover, when joint physical and/or legal custody is contemplated, additional factors specified in Minn.Stat. § 518.-17, subd. 2 (1986) must be considered. These factors deal with the ability of parents to relate cooperatively in parenting decisions. Here, the trial court found that the parties had shown an ability to cooperate. The evidence, however, completely contradicts this finding.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, creates a rebuttable presumption that requested joint legal custody is in the children’s best interests, including in cases pending when the presumption takes effect.

Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy · filed 1987-04-14subd. 2

The statute now mandates use of a rebuttable presumption that requested joint legal custody is in the best interests of the children. ... Because the statutory presumption became a part of the law of this case before it was finally determined, and because the record shows nothing to rebut the suggestion, we find no basis for denying a provision for joint legal custody of all four children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2's rebuttable presumption favoring joint legal custody took effect on August 1, 1986.

Marriage of Nies v. Nies · filed 1987-06-16(2)

This subdivision was modified effective August 1, 1986 to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of joint legal custody. However, the statutory presumption became effective law after the July 23, 1986 entry of judgment in this case which granted respondent sole custody.

Section 518.17 permits a court to reject joint legal custody when the parents have demonstrated that they cannot cooperate in raising their children.

Marriage of Digatono v. Digatono · filed 1987-10-27subd. 2

Evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding. The court did not abuse the discretion accorded to it in rejecting joint custody because of the parents’ demonstrated inability to cooperate.

A joint custody decision must reflect consideration of the child’s best interests and the additional joint custody factors.

Marriage of Veit v. Veit · filed 1987-10-13subd. 1, 2

The findings as a whole demonstrate that the trial court properly considered the relevant factors specified in Minn.Stat. § 518.-17, subd. 1 regarding the children’s best interests and subd. 2 regarding additional joint custody considerations. Our review of the evidence supports the court’s conclusion joint legal and physical custody is appropriate in this case.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to assess the parents’ ability to cooperate and resolve disputes about their children.

Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz · filed 1988-09-06(2)

The district court’s judgment indicates the court considered the factors listed in section 518.17, subdivision 2. ... Accordingly, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion by awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody.

Section 518.17’s best interests of the child standard governs motions to modify joint physical custody.

Elgard v. Dudley · filed 1991-06-11

We find that Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d) does not apply to joint physical custody cases and should not be applied here. In joint physical custody cases, trial courts should utilize the best interests of the child standard found in Minn.Stat. § 518.17.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, requires consideration of parental cooperation when joint physical custody is proposed.

Marriage Of: Wopata v. Wopata · filed 1993-04-06(2)

Because the evidence and the findings relative to the cooperation factors set out under Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2, expressly contradict the court’s grant of joint physical custody, we reverse.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 presumes joint legal custody is in a child’s best interests.

Marriage of Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld · filed 1995-04-18(2)

Joint legal custody is presumed to be in a child’s best interests. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1992). ... Given these substantial findings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ultimate finding that the best interests of the children will be met with a joint legal custody placement.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 requires courts considering joint custody to evaluate parental cooperation, but permits them to assess cooperation differently for shared physical care and joint legal custody.

Crosby v. Crosby · filed 1998-12-15(2)

Before awarding joint legal custody or joint physical custody, a trial court judge must evaluate, among other things, the cooperation ability of parents, their dispute resolution methods, and their willingness to use these methods. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1996). ... When determining whether a parent should share extensively in the physical care of children, the trial court is free to evaluate the cooperativeness of the parents differently than when deciding whether the parents could successfully act as joint legal custodians.

Section 518.17 requires courts considering joint legal custody to assess the parties’ ability to cooperate; evidence of difficulty cooperating does not necessarily preclude an award.

LaChapelle v. Mitten · filed 2000-03-14(2)

Where a grant of joint legal custody is contemplated, the court must consider additional best-interests factors which relate to the parties’ ability to cooperate in the raising of the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1998) (factors to be considered when joint legal custody is requested include the ability of potential joint custodians to cooperate). There is evidence in the record of the parties’ inability to cooperate. However, there is also evidence that Mitten and Ohanian are willing to try to cooperate for L.M.KO.’s sake, and that there are methods in place for resolving disputes that might arise. The trial court found that joint legal custody would be in L.M.KO.’s best interests. The record supports the trial court’s finding.

Section 518.17 requires courts considering joint physical custody to assess four additional factors and does not presume against joint physical custody when those factors and the child’s best interests support it.

Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger · filed 2005-07-12subd. 2

Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (2004). There is neither a statutory presumption disfavoring joint physical custody, nor is there a preference against joint physical custody if the district court finds that it is in the best interest of the child and the four joint custody factors support such a determination.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, requires a court considering joint physical custody to assess the parents' ability to cooperate, their methods of resolving disputes, the effect of sole authority on the child, and any domestic abuse.

Marriage of Zander v. Zander · filed 2006-08-22(2)

When a party seeks joint physical custody, the district court is required to consider four additional factors: the parents' ability to cooperate, their methods of resolving disputes, whether it would be detrimental to the child for one parent to have sole authority over the child's upbringing, and whether domestic abuse has occurred between the parents. Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (2004). ... Because the district court made findings on the statutory factors relating to custody, including those related to joint custody, and the record supports its findings, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody of their children.

Section 518.17 presumes joint legal custody is in a child’s best interests absent domestic abuse, but that presumption can be overcome when the parents cannot cooperate on major decisions.

In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Hare · filed 2014-08-04subd. 2

In making its determination, the district court must consider all relevant factors, including thirteen statutorily enumerated factors, see Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2012), as well as additional factors when the parties seek either joint legal or physical custody, see Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (2012). Absent domestic abuse, a rebuttable presumption exists that joint legal custody is in the best interests of a child. Id. ... The district court made findings on the best-interest and joint-custody factors, including that the presumption of joint legal custody had been overcome and that joint legal custody was not in the child’s best interests because the parties were unable to work together on decisions such as education and medical care, and it would not be detrimental for respondent to be granted sole legal custody.

When there is domestic abuse between the parents, Section 518.17 presumes that joint legal or physical custody is not in the children’s best interests, subject to rebuttal.

In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Loger · filed 2014-09-15(2)

But in the case of domestic abuse between the parents, which is supported by the record here, there is “a rebuttable presumption that joint legal or physical custody is not in the best interests of the child[ren].” Id. ... In light of the statutory presumption that sole custody is in the children’s best interests, appellant’s failure to provide the district court with any information bearing on the best interests of the children, and appellant’s admissions that the children’s best interests would be served by granting sole legal and physical custody to respondent, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that appellant has no reasonable defense on the merits with respect to its custody ruling.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2 creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when domestic abuse has occurred between the parents. The presumption does not apply when abuse has not been proved.

In re the Marriage of: Peiliang Yuan v. Te Hao, and In re the Matter of: Te Hao and o/b/o Zhaokui Yuan v. Peiliang Yuan · filed 2014-12-01subd. 2

Because the record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the district court’s finding that domestic abuse between the parties had not been proven, the district court did not err by declining to apply the statutory presumption against joint custody.

A finding of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding joint legal custody.

In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Kvaal · filed 2015-11-16subd. 2(b)

Moreover, a finding of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against an award of joint legal custody. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2(b) (2014). The district court, by awarding joint legal custody to the parties, rejected Highley’s allegation of domestic abuse.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when domestic abuse has occurred between the parents.

In Re the Custody of: A. J. O. David Ortiz v. Un · filed 2015-12-14(2)

Because domestic abuse occurred between the parents in this matter, the presumption against joint legal custody applies. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2. Father provided no evidence to rebut the presumption.

Under the 2014 version of section 518.17, subdivision 2(b), the district court must analyze the joint-custody factors when either the parties or the court contemplates joint legal or joint physical custody.

In re the Marriage of: Christina Marie Rexine v. Rexine · filed 2015-10-26subd. 2(b)

Rather, the statute requires the district court to analyze the joint-custody factors if either the parties or the district court contemplates joint legal or joint physical custody.

Subdivision 2(b) requires the district court to analyze the joint-custody factors when either party or the court contemplates joint legal or physical custody.

In re the Marriage of: David Allen Anderson v. Lisa Marie Anderson n/k/a Lisa Marie Syverson · filed 2016-01-192(b)

Under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2(b), the district court must analyze the joint- custody factors if either party or the court contemplates or seeks joint legal or joint physical custody. ... After weighing these factors, the district court did not err in concluding that joint physical custody was in the best interests of the children.

Section 518.17, subdivision 2, presumes that joint physical custody is not in the children’s best interests when domestic abuse has occurred; the parent seeking joint custody must present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.

In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Caudullo · filed 2016-02-22(2)

When the district court finds that domestic abuse has occurred, it must apply a rebuttable presumption that joint physical custody is not in the best interests of the children. ... Father did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption against joint physical custody in light of his abusive conduct.

Section 518.17 presumes, when either parent requests it, that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D'Costa v. D'Costa · filed 2016-02-011(b)(9)

There is a rebuttable presumption, upon either parent’s request, that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(9).

Section 518.17’s joint legal custody presumption does not arise when both parents request sole custody and neither asks for joint legal custody.

In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Shaw · filed 2016-04-11(2)(b)

Each party requested sole legal and sole physical custody of both children. In fact, husband expressly preferred that wife be awarded sole custody of the children if he were not awarded sole custody because he “had a hard time envisioning how” a joint custody arrangement could work. Therefore, the rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the children’s best interests does not apply.

Section 518.17, subdivision 3, permits a court to give one parent authority to resolve a specific custody dispute when doing so is just and proper, even if the parents share legal custody.

In re the Marriage of: Beth Carolyn Potter v. Potter · filed 2016-05-31subd. 3

It is within the district court’s authority to make “such further order as it deems just and proper concerning” legal custody. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3. The district court’s order provides a method for resolving future disagreements about A.P.’s IEP without the delay required to bring a motion in district court. This prompt method for resolving disputes was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion, and we affirm the custody order.

Section 518.17 presumes that joint legal custody is in a child’s best interests except in cases involving domestic abuse between the parents.

In re the Custody of A.W.W: Nicholas Taylor Wehrwein v. Hascall · filed 2024-06-17(b)(9)

Except in cases involving domestic abuse between the parents, there is a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(9). Mother fails to point to evidence in the record that would overcome this presumption. The district court’s best-interests findings support the district court’s award of joint legal custody, and we affirm the district court’s determination.

Section 518.17 creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is not in a child’s best interests when domestic abuse has occurred between the parents.

In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Aguocha · filed 2016-02-29subd. 2(b)

Because the statute establishes a presumption against joint custody when domestic abuse has occurred, because the district court’s factual findings are supported by the record, and because the decree clearly considers all 17 best-interests factors that were required in this case, we affirm the district court’s custody determination.

Joint physical custody does not require an equal division of parenting time; equal parenting time alone does not turn sole physical custody into joint physical custody.

Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.) · filed 2018-06-20(1)(b)(8)

Like the court of appeals, we reject the interpretation proffered by Healey and amici that requires a parent with "sole physical custody" to have the majority of the parenting time. In other words, a motion for equal parenting time should not be treated as a motion for joint physical custody entirely on the basis that the sole physical custodian would no longer have the majority of the parenting time. Our conclusion is supported by the fact that "[j]oint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time." Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(8) (2016).

Section 518.17’s best-interests standard requires a parent seeking to modify joint legal custody under an agreement using that standard to make a preliminary showing that the change serves the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Goemaat · filed 2015-08-17subd. 1(a)

As the parties agree on appeal with the district court’s determination that only the best-interests standard under section 518.17 is applicable in this case, the issue before this court is whether appellant made a sufficient prima facie showing under section 518.17 to receive an evidentiary hearing on his modification motion. ... Even assuming that respondent did violate the parties’ joint legal custody arrangement by making some unilateral decisions regarding the children’s healthcare and childcare, appellant does not specifically allege how it would accordingly be in the children’s best interests to end the parties’ joint custody arrangement and award him sole legal custody.

Section 518.17 calls for consideration of the parties’ financial circumstances when deciding whether to reduce child support.

Becker v. Becker · filed 1974-05-03

Defendant also claims the court erred in denying his motion for a reduction of support by failing to consider the earning capacity and financial circumstances of both parties pursuant to Minn. St. 518.17. The affidavit supporting the motion declared defendant’s inability to meet the support payments, itemized his monthly expenses, and claimed his former wife earns in excess of $500 per month. Based on the parties’ affidavits, the court ruled on the motion. There is no indication that the court did not consider the parties’ financial circumstances.

Section 518.17, subdivision 4, was repealed, and its child support factors were consolidated in section 518.551, subdivision 5(b).

Marriage of Dean v. Pelton · filed 1989-04-04(4)

Since Moylan, section 518.17, subd. 4, has been repealed, and the factors to be considered are now all consolidated in section 518.551, subd. 5(b).

Section 518.17 requires courts setting child support to consider the circumstances and financial capabilities of both parents.

MacHacek v. Voss · filed 1985-02-08

Subdivision 5 orders the alleged father to pay temporary support “determined according to chapter 518,” and sections of that chapter covering child support payments require consideration of the circumstances and financial capabilities of both parents. See Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (1984).

Section 518.17, subdivision 3(a)(3), requires a just and proper child support determination and permits financial disclosure needed to make one.

Marriage of Guyer v. Guyer · filed 1999-01-19(3)(a)(3)

Although both parties debate these questions, both parties ignore Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 3(a)(3) (1998), which requires a just and proper determination of child support. We examine the propriety of this disclosure in light of the trial court’s more important power to shape an equitable child support award.