In re the Marriage of: Kylie Jo McCuen v. Joshua William McCuen, A16-136

Background

Kylie and Joshua McCuen divorced in 2014; they share legal custody of three children and mother was awarded sole physical custody per the dissolution agreement.
The original parenting-time schedule gave father about 33% parenting time, with overnight time contingent on his obtaining adequate housing.
Father was promoted and began working fewer days; in Sept. 2015 he moved to modify parenting time to reflect his new work schedule, proposing an increase to ~47% time.
Mother opposed, arguing the change effectively modified physical custody/primary residence, alleged father had not exercised prior parenting time, and questioned his parenting ability.
The district court applied the parenting-time modification statute (Minn. Stat. § 518.175), found eight best-interest factors neutral and four favoring father, and increased father’s parenting time to 47% while mother retained majority (≈53%).
Mother appealed only the modification based on father’s new work schedule; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	McCuen (mother) Argument	McCuen (father) Argument	Held
Whether the court should have applied custody-modification statute (Minn. Stat. § 518.18) rather than parenting-time statute (Minn. Stat. § 518.175)	Increase to ~47% effectively changes physical custody/primary residence and thus § 518.18 governs	Order does not change custody or primary residence; § 518.175 applies because mother retains majority of parenting time	Court applied § 518.175 correctly; no change to custody or primary residence because mother retained majority time
Whether district court’s factual findings re: best-interests and parenting history are clearly erroneous	Findings (e.g., that parental participation factor is neutral) lack record support; court relied on absence of evidence	Record contains conflicting affidavits and supports district court credibility determinations and neutral findings	Findings not clearly erroneous; court properly weighed affidavits and credibility and considered best-interest factors
Whether the modification required an evidentiary hearing	Should have held a hearing because change was substantial and impacts custody	No evidentiary hearing required because modification did not restrict parenting time and was not a custody change	No hearing required; modification to 47% is not a restriction triggering Matson standard
Whether increasing father’s time to near 50% creates de facto joint physical custody	Substantial increase transforms custody regime, requiring § 518.18 protections	Time split alone does not convert sole physical custody to joint; labels/stipulation control custody designation	Court and precedent reject inferring custody change from percentages alone; no de facto joint custody created

Key Cases Cited

Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. App. 2009) (standard of review for parenting-time decisions)
Geiger v. Geiger, 470 N.W.2d 704 (Minn. App. 1991) (near-50% parenting time does not create de facto joint physical custody)
Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1999) (custody designation by stipulation/control by court governs over time-based arguments)
Nolte v. Mehrens, 648 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. App. 2002) (parties’ custodial label in a stipulation is binding)
Suleski v. Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. App. 2014) (will not infer custody change from increased parenting time absent court intent or parties’ agreement)
Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. App. 2015) (no requirement for express best-interests findings when modifying parenting time under § 518.175)
Matson v. Matson, 638 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. App. 2002) (evidentiary hearing required only when parenting time is restricted/substantial modification)
Knapp v. Knapp, 883 N.W.2d 833 (Minn. App. 2016) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
In re S.G., 828 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2013) (standard for disturbing findings based on conflicting evidence)
In re the Adoption of C.H., 554 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1996) (same)