Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Buffalo, Minnesota family law divorce lawyers represented Petitioner and Respondent in a child custody dispute.

Father and mother have one joint minor child, who was born in 2017. The parties were never married to each other. In 2020, the district court granted mother a harassment restraining order (HRO) against father. Father then filed a petition to establish custody and parenting time.

In January 2023, the district court filed an order for custody and parenting time reflecting the agreement that the parties had previously reached during a hearing on the petition. The order granted the parties joint legal custody, mother sole physical custody, and father parenting time. Father's parenting time included Thursdays and every other weekend with an alternating holiday schedule. The order also stated, in relevant part, that each party must notify the other 30 days before travel with the child and that the parties agreed to enroll the child in play therapy.

Several months later, the district court granted mother another HRO against father.

In October 2023, mother moved to amend the custody order. Mother submitted a supporting affidavit highlighting the acrimonious nature of the relationship between the parties and her concerns that father's erratic nature, lack of stable housing, and frequent late arrivals to parenting exchanges were negatively affecting the child. She also alleged that father prevented her from enrolling the child in regular play therapy by withholding his consent and refusing to agree to any one provider. Mother moved for sole legal custody or, alternatively, sole legal custody in relation to the child's medical care and therapy. Mother also sought to limit father's parenting time to two hours of supervised contact per week and to remove the requirement that she report travel with the child to father unless it interferes with his parenting time.

In February 2024, the district court filed its order modifying the parties' prior order for custody and parenting time. In the order, the district court denied mother's motion for sole legal custody after determining that mother's allegations did not rise to the level of endangerment sufficient for a prima facie case for modification under Minnesota Statutes section 518.18(d)(iv) (2022). Nevertheless, the district court acknowledged that father's actions had prevented the child from receiving therapy. Because of those actions, the district court granted mother "final decision-making authority over all mental health decisions related to the parties' child including, but not limited to, selection of therapist and appointment times," should the parties disagree. The district court also stated that modifications to parenting time may be made in the best interests of the child under Minnesota Statutes section 518.175, subdivision 5(b) (2022).[2] Then, in relevant part, the district court (1) granted mother's motion to eliminate the requirement that she notify father of future travel with the child unless it interferes with his parenting time and (2) sua sponte ordered that father forfeits his parenting time with the child if he arrives more than 15 minutes late to a parenting exchange unless he and mother agree to a different pick-up time.

The district court denied mother's request that father's parenting time be changed to supervised parenting time.
Laurie v. Nebel, A24-0413 (Minn. App. Nov 18, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed in part and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: