Opinion ID: 1803426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Custody of Joanna Sefkow

Text: The trial court originally awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of both Laura and Joanna. However, Joanna's primary residence was designated as with her mother. At that time, Joanna was two years old. Only Paula appealed. The court of appeals reasoned that Paula was both children's primary caretaker. It modified the language of the original award to reflect the reality of the living situation of the parents. Refusing to comment on the viability of joint physical custody when the parties lived 50 miles apart, the court of appeals simply recast the language to a traditional award of sole physical custody to Paula, with reasonable visitation rights by the father. Sefkow I, 372 N.W.2d at 47. This court granted Robert's petition for review of that custody decision for the limited purpose of remanding to the court of appeals for reconsideration of its decision in light of Pikula. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 374 N.W.2d 733 (Minn.1985). In turn, the court of appeals remanded the matter to the trial court but limited the remand to a determination of the older child, Laura. Sefkow II, 378 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.App. 1985). Robert's petition to this court to include Joanna in the remand was denied. This denial is not an adjudication or expression of opinion on the merits. Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co., 388 N.W. 2d 732, 739 (Minn.1986). The denial does, however, make the decision of the court of appeals binding on the lower court. Thus, the remand hearing was limited to a determination of Laura's custody. Joanna's primary parent and custody had already been determined; Paula had been designated as her sole physical custodian by the court of appeals in Sefkow I. Indeed, the parties themselves acknowledged that the remand hearing was limited to determination of the physical custody of Laura. Paula's Motion to Change Residence, insofar as it concerned Joanna, was properly characterized as an Auge Motion, a Motion to Modify Custody. See Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.1983). However, the trial court proceeded to undertake a primary caretaker analysis under Pikula for Joanna as well as Laura and concluded that Robert was Joanna's primary parent. The court of appeals reversed, declaring that this conclusion was not relevant to a motion for modification of custody brought three years after the initial custody determination. Sefkow III, 413 N.W.2d 132. We agree. The trial court erred when it concluded that the determination of Laura's primary parent necessarily includes the determination of her sibling's primary parent. While one parent may well be the primary caretaker of all the children in a family, it is certainly possible for different children, especially if they are different ages, to have different primary caretakers. The rule in Pikula treats each child individually. See Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 712 (enunciating the general rule that when one parent has been primary caretaker of a child too young to state a preference, custody should be awarded to that parent). Joanna's primary parent was not at issue at the remand hearing. In making that determination, the trial court exceeded the scope of remand. Modification proceedings are governed by Minnesota Statutes Section 518.18, which provides that the court shall retain the custodian established by prior order. However, if a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or custodian, and if modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child, the court may order modification of custody if (1) the custodian agrees to the modification; (2) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner [the non-custodial parent] with the custodian's consent; or (3) the child's present environment endangers the child's physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages to the child. Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d). A custodial parent's move out of state is clearly a change in circumstances, triggering the provisions of the statute. Since Paula neither agreed to the modification of Joanna's custody nor consented to her integration into Robert's family, the focus of the modification inquiry is on the third statutory factor: the child's present environment must endanger her physical or emotional health or development, and the harm likely to be caused by a change in that environment must be outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child. Since denial of removal would effect a change in custody, we have construed the statute as establishing an implicit presumption that removal will be permitted, subject to the noncustodial parent's ability to establish that removal is not in the best interests of the child and that removal will endanger the child's physical or emotional health. Auge, 334 N.W.2d at 395. The burden of proof is on the party opposing the custody. Id. at 397. We have extended the rule enunciated in Auge, which involved a parent who had sole physical and legal custody of a child, to the parent who has sole legal custody but joint physical custody. Gordon v. Gordon, 339 N.W.2d 269 (Minn.1983). Paula was awarded sole physical custody of Joanna by the Sefkow I court. The parties retained joint legal custody. Therefore, Auge and Gordon control. The statute provides only one ground for denying permission to remove: If the purpose of the move is to interfere with visitation rights given to the noncustodial parent by the decree, the court shall not permit the child's residence to be moved to another state. Minn.Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3. It is undisputed that the purpose of Paula's move was to accept employment with the Appleton school system. At no time did she indicate that she intended to interfere with Robert's visitation rights. Therefore, a presumption that Paula would be able to remove Joanna was established, subject to Robert's ability to establish that removal would not be in the best interests of the child. The trial court, after undertaking a primary caretaker analysis under Pikula and going through each of the statutory factors to determine the best interests of the child, Joanna, stated: Because of the interference by Respondent [Paula] with the bond existing between Petitioner [Robert] and Joanna, because it places her in an environment where she will be regularly under the care of a babysitter and withdrawn from a family unit, because she can readily adapt to a stable, continuous family unit with Petitioner at Fergus Falls, Minnesota, because she has extended family in Minnesota and North Dakota, because the circumstances of the family unit she would reside with in Wisconsin are unknown, because it is likely that settlement in Appleton, Wisconsin, will be further disrupted by an anticipated change in Respondent's family unit, and because it is Joanna's preference that she reside with Petitioner and most importantly, because this court has found that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of Joanna, the court finds that Joanna's environment with Respondent at Appleton, Wisconsin, endangers her emotional health and will impair her emotional development. The trial court concluded that Robert had met his burden of proof and modified Joanna's custody accordingly. The court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals in Sefkow III, correctly observed that rather than demonstrating the alleged dangers of permitting Joanna to move to Wisconsin with appellant [Paula], the findings focus on the alleged benefits of placing Joanna with respondent [Robert]. 413 N.W.2d at 132. We agree that the trial court's emphasis was misplaced. The trial court readily admitted that the circumstances of the family unit in Wisconsin are unknown. Yet those very circumstances must be analyzed to overcome the presumption in favor of Paula's continued custody. The bond between Joanna and Paula, her custodial parent, was not mentioned in the trial court's findings at all. The harm caused by the separation of Joanna from the parent with whom she had lived nearly all her life was not even considered. We have stated that the trial court must consider the negative effects of separating the child and the custodial parent. Auge, 334 N.W.2d at 399. The burden placed on the noncustodial parent in modification cases is a heavy one. We conclude that that burden was not met in this case. The trial court therefore abused its discretion in modifying Joanna's custody. We hold that the permanent physical custody of Joanna Sefkow should remain with her mother, Paula Sefkow, subject to liberal visitation with her father, and we affirm the court of appeals. We recognize that this analysis leads to a split custody of the children. We regret this unfortunate arrangement, but we conclude that in this particular case, it is unavoidable. Throughout these proceedings, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the desirability of the children's remaining together. We do not favor split custody as a general rule; indeed we support the general policy that the best interests of minor children are usually served by permitting them to remain together. See Schultz v. Schultz, 266 Minn. 205, 208, 123 N.W.2d 118, 121 (1963); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 899 (Minn.App.1987); see also Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1. However, the welfare of the child is paramount, and the decision to split custody is not conclusively erroneous. Borchert v. Borchert, 279 Minn. 16, 19-20, 154 N.W.2d 902, 905 (1967); Schultz, 266 Minn. at 208, 123 N.W.2d at 121; see Sefkow III, 413 N.W.2d at 140. (Nierengarten, J., dissenting). Under the circumstances of this case, we feel there is no alternative arrangement. Other factors, such as bonding to a parent and stability of the home environment, outweigh the need for Laura and Joanna to reside together. We do not think that the split custody arrangement necessarily means that the sibling relationship between these girls will be destroyed. Prior to the trial court's decision after the remand hearing, Laura and Joanna lived apart but spent vacations and holidays, as well as frequent weekends, together as each visited her noncustodial parent. We foresee that arrangement continuing now. The continuity of the relationship need not be disturbed.