Christensen v. Healey
2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 83
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents (Christensen and Healey) share joint legal custody; Healey had sole physical custody and child’s primary residence per 2011 stipulated order, amended in 2015 to make child live primarily with Healey during school year and alternate weeks in summer.
- In 2016 Christensen moved to modify parenting time to equal parenting time year-round; alternatively he sought an increase less than equal during the school year.
- Christensen expressly stated he was not seeking to change physical custody, the child’s school, or primary residence.
- The district court treated the equal-parenting-time request as a motion to modify physical custody and to change the child’s primary residence, applied the endangerment standard (Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv)), found no prima facie endangerment, and denied the motion without addressing the alternative request.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the district court erred by treating the equal-time request as custody modification and by defining primary residence solely by percentage of parenting time; it also remanded for findings on the alternative request and the 25% presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equal parenting time motion was a request to modify physical custody | Christensen: motion was to modify parenting time only, not custody or primary residence | District court: equal time would amount to joint physical custody and eliminate a single primary residence | Court: Error — increasing to 50% does not automatically change custody; label and court’s designation matter more than time split |
| Whether granting equal parenting time would change child’s primary residence | Christensen: primary residence is more than arithmetic; he is not seeking to change residence/school | District court: shifting to equal time means no parent has majority, so primary residence changes | Court: Error — primary residence not determined solely by parenting-time apportionment; must consider attachments (school, activities, community) and other factors |
| Which legal standard applies: endangerment (§518.18(d)) vs best interests (§518.175, subd.5) | Christensen: best-interests standard governs parenting-time modifications that do not change primary residence | District court/Healey: endangerment standard applies because proposed change would alter primary residence | Court: Where custody and primary residence are not necessarily changed, the endangerment standard should not be applied solely based on a 50/50 time split; courts must assess primary residence facts before choosing standard |
| Whether district court addressed alternative request and statutory 25% presumption | Christensen: court failed to analyze alternative increased parenting time under best interests and didn’t address presumption he is entitled to at least 25% | District court: did not make findings on the alternative request | Court: Error — remand required for best-interests findings and explicit consideration of the 25% presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. App. 2009) (standard of appellate review for parenting-time decisions)
- Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. App. 2014) (definition and analysis of child’s primary residence beyond time split)
- Geiger v. Geiger, 470 N.W.2d 704 (Minn. App. 1991) (frequent visitation does not automatically change legal custodial status)
- Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1999) (courts give weight to custodial label agreed/entered by parties)
- Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008) (prima facie showing required to trigger evidentiary hearing on custody modification)
- Hagen v. Schirmers, 783 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. App. 2010) (court must demonstrate consideration of 25% parenting-time presumption when awarding less)