SF4923

Purpose

This bill updates Minnesota law on how courts decide custody and parenting time by changing the factors used to determine the best interests of the child and how those factors are applied and explained in court.

Main Provisions

• Explicit list of factors for best interests

  • The child’s needs (physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and other needs) and how proposed parenting arrangements affect the child’s development.
  • Any special medical, mental health, developmental disability, or educational needs that may require special parenting or services.
  • The child’s reasonable preference if the child is old enough and mature enough to express a reliable preference.
  • Whether domestic abuse (as defined in Minnesota law) has occurred between the parents or in either parent’s household and how that abuse affects parenting and the child’s safety and development.
  • Any physical, mental, or chemical health issues of a parent that affect the child’s safety or development.
  • Each parent’s history and involvement in caring for the child.
  • Each parent’s willingness and ability to provide ongoing care and to maintain consistency with parenting time.
  • How changes to the child’s home, school, or community may affect the child’s well-being and development.
  • The impact of the proposed parenting arrangements on the child’s relationships with each parent, siblings, and other important people.
  • The benefit to the child of maximizing parenting time with both parents and the potential detriment of limiting parenting time.
  • Each parent’s willingness and ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent and to encourage ongoing contact, and to cooperate in resolving major decisions.
  • Each parent’s ability to share information and minimize the child’s exposure to parental conflict, and to use dispute-resolution methods for major decisions.

• Process requirements for courts

  • The court must make detailed findings on each factor and explain how the evidence supports its conclusions about custody and parenting time.
  • No single factor may be used to dominate the analysis; factors can be interrelated.

• Principles and limits on custody decisions

  • The court should promote healthy growth and development by fostering safe, stable, nurturing relationships between the child and both parents.
  • The court must not automatically favor one parent over the other solely because of the parent’s gender.
  • Both parents are presumed capable of developing nurturing relationships with the child unless there are substantial reasons to doubt this.
  • The court may not consider conduct that does not affect the parent-child relationship when making custody decisions.
  • Disability alone is not enough to decide custody for the custodian or the child.
  • Evidence of a violation of certain domestic violence laws can influence the custody decision.
  • There is no automatic presumption for or against joint physical custody, except as noted regarding domestic abuse.
  • Joint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time.
  • There is a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests when requested, but this presumption can be rebutted if domestic abuse occurred, considering the nature and context and the implications for parenting and the child’s safety and development.

• Member of the military exception

  • In cases involving a service member’s child, the court may not rely only on past or possible future deployments when deciding the child’s best interests.

Changes to Existing Law

• Adds a comprehensive, required, multi-factor framework for determining the best interests of the child, with a strong emphasis on detailed, factor-by-factor analysis.
• Codifies a no-single-factor approach and recognizes that factors can influence one another.
• Establishes explicit limitations on using gender as a sole basis for custody decisions.
• Introduces a structured presumption framework for joint custody (joint legal custody is presumptively in the child’s best interests, with a rebuttable exception for domestic abuse), and clarifies that joint physical custody is not required to be an exact 50/50 split.
• Strengthens consideration of domestic abuse in custody outcomes and requires weighing its nature and context and the impact on the child.
• Affirms that disability alone cannot determine custody outcomes.
• Adds a special rule for service members’ custody cases to avoid relying solely on deployment history.

Potential Impacts

• More explicit guidance for judges on how to evaluate custody and parenting time.
• Increased attention to the child’s specific needs, including medical, mental health, and developmental considerations.
• Heightened focus on safety and protection in cases involving domestic abuse.
• Greater flexibility in recognizing diverse family structures and parenting arrangements.
• Potentially clearer pathways for service members’ families by limiting deployment as the sole custody factor.

Relevant Terms best interests of the child; custody; parenting time; joint legal custody; joint physical custody; domestic abuse; Minnesota Statutes 2024; section 518.17; factors; detailed findings; child’s needs; special medical needs; mental health needs; educational needs; child preference; safety; child well-being; parental cooperation; parental conflict; deployment; service member; 518B.01; 609.507; disability; nurturing relationships; gender fairness; parenting time schedule; parental access to information.