In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 93
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- 2008 dissolution decree: joint legal custody, mother has sole physical custody, with a specified parenting schedule and two weeks of uninterrupted summer vacation for each parent.
- Transportation provision: the custodial parent initially handles school-district-based exchanges; if father leaves that district, father bears transportation.
- Post-judgment moves: father moves to Randolph (12 miles from Northfield); mother moves to Dundas, then Ramsey (about 64 miles from Randolph and 75 miles from Northfield/Dundas).
- Mother petitioned in 2012–2013 to modify parenting time and transportation due to distance; she proposed maintaining sole custody but adjusting schedule and splitting transportation; father proposed a largely opposite schedule favoring him during summer.
- District court granted a bench ruling in 2013, adopting father's proposed parenting-time schedule and amending transportation; final order drafted by father's attorney was entered.
- On appeal, issues include whether custody/primary residence were modified, whether parenting-time changes restricted mother, holiday-time findings, transportation modification, and adoption of a proposed order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the parenting-time change modify custody or residence? | Suleski | Rupe | No custody or residence modification |
| Does summer-time increase for father amount to a restriction of mother’s time? | Suleski | Rupe | Insufficient reduction to constitute restriction |
| Were adequate findings made to support exclusive holiday/time breaks for father? | Suleski | Rupe | Holiday findings inadequate; remand for findings |
| Was the transportation provision properly modified? | Suleski | Rupe | No abuse; ambiguity resolved in district court’s favor |
| Was the district court's adoption of the proposed order improper? | Suleski | Rupe | Verbatim adoption not automatic error; remand limited to holiday findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. 1995) (broad discretion in parenting-time decisions)
- Schisel v. Schisel, 762 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. App. 2009) (residence defined by common meaning; primary residence concept)
- Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. App. 2009) (restriction vs. modification depends on reason and amount of change)
- Matson v. Matson, 638 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. App. 2002) (insubstantial vs substantial parenting-time modification standards)
- Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. App. 1992) (restricted parenting time based on reduced schedule factors)
- Moravick v. Moravick, 461 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1990) (requires findings for holiday/special-day allocations)
- Danielson v. Danielson, 393 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. App. 1986) (best interests standard in parenting-time decisions)
- Anderson v. Archer, 510 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1993) (holidays/special days consideration in parenting plans)
- In re Welfare of B.K.P., 662 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. App. 2003) (hearing standards for substantial modifications in parenting time)