On March 10, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals gave new hope to non-custodial parents seeking to prohibit former spouses from changing the residence of a minor child to a new location within the State of Minnesota.  It had previously been believed that as long as the custodial parent moved the child’s residence to a new location within the State, courts were largely without power to restrict the move.  A sharp distinction had been drawn between interstate moves (i.e., moves from Minnesota to another state) which were often prohibited on account of the negative consequences to the child, and intrastate moves (i.e., moves from one location in Minnesota to another location in Minnesota), which often were not.  A common fear amongst many non-custodial parents was that the custodial parent would decide, unilaterally, to move the child’s residence to a distant and far-away corner of the State of Minnesota, making the current parenting time schedule unworkable.

In Schisel v. Schisel, the Court of Appeals confronted the question of whether a trial court has the authority to restrict the location of a parent’s in-state residence when the parties are awarded joint physical custody of the minor children.  In rejecting the mother’s arguments that it did not, the Court of Appeals explained that Minnesota Statutes Section 518.17 (the “best interests standard”) requires trial courts to make orders that are just and proper concerning the minor children’s “physical custody and residence.”  Because the term “residence” is commonly understood to mean “place” or “geography” (not just the person “with whom” a child resides), the Court held that trial courts have authority to restrict a parent’s in-state residence as long as the restriction is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.

What does this mean for you?  It means that the best interests of the child continue to serve as the guiding light for all court decisions involving children.  It means that courts can prevent parents from moving from Edina to Ely if the move harms the children.  And, it means that the decision-making authority is back in the trial courts, where judges can examine the parties and assess their motives.