Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sumner v. Sumner
Citations: 353 N.W.2d 251; 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3469Docket: C3-84-258
Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; August 21, 1984; Minnesota; State Appellate Court
John Sumner appealed an order from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that denied his request to modify the custody arrangements for his eight-year-old son following his divorce from Nancy Sumner. The original dissolution decree granted joint legal and physical custody, but Nancy, having moved to Pittsburgh, sought sole custody and permission to relocate their son. The trial court modified the custody arrangement in October 1983, allowing the child to live with John during the school year and with Nancy for part of the summer. The court also established visitation rights and required Nancy to cover transportation costs for John's visits to Pittsburgh. John appealed the January 1984 order that denied cross-motions to amend the October order. The court noted that an order denying amended findings is non-appealable; however, it chose to exercise discretionary review given the circumstances. The analysis highlighted statutory standards for modifying custody, stating that a prior custody order may only be modified if there has been a change in circumstances affecting the child or custodian, and that such modification must serve the child's best interests. The existing custodian should be retained unless there is evidence of danger to the child's health or development that outweighs the benefits of the change. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking modification. The court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and remanded for further findings, indicating that the required statutory standards for custody modification may not have been fully addressed. In State ex rel. Gunderson v. Preuss, the court addressed the modification of joint custody when one parent seeks to change the current custody arrangement. The trial court's decision to allow a child to alternate school years between Minnesota and Pittsburgh was based on the belief that it served the child's best interests. However, the court found that the trial judge failed to demonstrate that the current environment posed a risk to the child's physical or emotional well-being or to weigh the potential harm of removing the child from his father and established surroundings against the benefits of increased time with the mother. Consequently, the modification of custody was deemed unsupported and thus reversed. Additionally, Nancy's request to modify transportation expense allocation was not properly raised, as she did not file a notice of review or include the issue in her statement of the case, leading to a waiver of her appeal on that matter. The court directed the trial court to make necessary findings as per Minn. Stat. 518.18(d) and remanded the case for those findings.