Court Opinion

ID: 9724894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:19:29.753764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.531682
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While I agree that Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d) (2006) is the applicable statute, unlike the majority, I conclude that respondent Deborah Goldman’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on custody should have been granted under the statute. Therefore, I would affirm the court of appeals decision to reverse the district court and remand this case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant Mark Greenwood (father) and respondent Deborah Goldman f/k/a Deborah Greenwood (mother) were married on January 16, 1993. I.G., the one child of this marriage, was born on January 30, 1996. On December 6, 1999, mother filed for dissolution of the marriage and moved for sole legal and physical custody of I.G. In 2001, the court temporarily awarded mother sole physical custody of then 5 year old I.G. but denied her request to move to Boston with I.G. to be closer to her family and to seek better employment. More specifically, the court imposed a “La-Chapelle locale restriction,” which granted mother sole physical custody “as long as mother remains available to parent [I.G.] in Minnesota.” At the time, the court reserved the issue of legal custody for a decision at a later date. In July 2002, the court entered its decree dissolving the marriage. In the decree, the court granted mother sole physical custody subject to the locale restriction on removal from the state that the court included in its 2001 order.
In February 2006, shortly after I.G.’s tenth birthday, mother brought a motion in district court to eliminate the LaCha-pelle locale restriction and for permission to remove I.G. to New York City. She also moved that the district court both undertake a relocation evaluation and hold an evidentiary hearing if it decided not to grant her motion immediately.
Mother submitted 15 affidavits in support of her motion. In her own affidavit, she disclosed that she was engaged to be married to a man living in New York City and alleged that changes in circumstances rendered the court’s locale restriction “contrary to I.G.’s best interests” and a danger to “[I.G.j’s emotional, spiritual, and academic development.” She noted that all of father’s other children were now out of the home or would soon be leaving the *287home, that I.G. had adjusted well to the changes in his life, and that members of her extended family lived on the East Coast. Mother emphasized the superior opportunities in New York City for I.G. to grow in his Orthodox Jewish faith, stating that there are no Orthodox Jewish schools in Minnesota that offer education beyond the eighth grade and that New York City has a thriving Orthodox Jewish community. The other 14 affidavits were by persons who attested to mother’s love for I.G., her good character, and that the move to New York City would benefit I.G. academically and spiritually.
At the March 2006 hearing on mother’s motion for removal, the district court stated that because it had actually said that it would award custody to father were it not for the relocation restriction, “I think [the locale restriction] was stronger than just LaChapelle.” The court subsequently denied mother’s motion, rejecting her request to eliminate the restriction and to permit the removal of I.G. The court also refused to order a “relocation evaluation” followed by an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the custody modification standard of section 518.18(d), not the removal standard of Minn.Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3, (2006), governed mother’s motion “because a locale condition is an integral part of the prior ‘custody order.’ ” The court concluded that because the initial grant of sole physical custody was explicitly subject to mother remaining in Minnesota, her motion was in effect a motion to modify custody and therefore was governed by section 518.18.
The district court proceeded to distinguish this case from that presented in Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1983). In Auge we said that a custodial parent is presumptively entitled to remove a child from the state and the burden of proof is on the party opposing such a move (hence the term “Auge ” presumption). Id. at 397. But the district court stated that this case is different because the initial custody award in Auge was not restricted by locale. In addition, the court relied on the reasoning of the court of appeals in Swarthout v. Siroki, No. C9-00-2219, 2001 WL 766870 (Minn.App. July 10, 2001), in which the award of sole physical custody to the mother was similarly conditioned on her remaining in Minnesota, which in turn led the court of appeals in Swarthout to construe the mother’s motion to remove the child from the state as a request for modification of custody.
Under section 518.18(d), a district court is not to modify a custody order unless it finds “that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the parties and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” Even if the petitioner makes out a prima facie case of changed circumstances, the court is to retain the existing custody arrangement unless, among other possibilities, “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 advantage of a change to the child.”
The district court compared I.G.’s circumstances, as outlined in its 2001 memorandum decision denying mother’s first request to remove the child, and concluded that although mother’s circumstances had changed, the child’s circumstances had not. The court further concluded that mother had not shown that the child’s present environment endangered his physical or emotional health or impaired his emotional development. Nor, the court concluded, had mother shown that the advantages of moving I.G. to New York City outweighed the harm likely to be caused by the move. *288The court emphasized that there was no evidence that I.G. wanted to move or that he could not “continue living and learning as an Orthodox Jew in Minneapolis.” The court deemed premature mother’s argument that I.G.’s Orthodox Jewish schooling in Minneapolis would end after eighth grade, noting that I.G. could continue to attend his current school “for the next few years.” Because the court concluded mother had not made out a prima facie case, it denied the motion without considering the other factors under section 518.18, citing Sjodin v. Sjodin, A05-1445, 2006 WL 44351, at *2 (Minn.App. Jan.10, 2006). In Nice-Petersen we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for modification of custody without an evidentiary hearing when the moving party failed to make out a prima facie case of changed circumstances that endangered the child’s physical or emotional health or the child’s development. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d at 472.
Shortly before mother appealed, the legislature amended section 518.175, subd. 3, by instructing district courts to apply a “best interests standard” to a request for an out-of-state move, by listing the factors a court is to consider in applying the “best interests standard,” and by placing the burden of proof on the parent requesting to move the residence of the child to another state. Act of May 31, 2006, ch. 280, § 13, 2006 Minn. Laws 1103, 1110-11 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3(b), (c) (Supp.2008)). Placing the burden of proof on the parent seeking to remove the child from the state directly conflicts with our decision in Auge, where we put the burden on the party opposing the out-of-state move. 334 N.W.2d at 397.
Like the district court, the first issue addressed by the court of appeals was whether to apply section 518.18 or section 518.175. The court of appeals applied section 518.175, concluding that the reach of section 518.18 is limited to “a change in placement, a change in physical custody from one household to another” and to “the change of provisions ‘specifying the child’s primary residence.’ ” In re Marriage of Goldman, 725 N.W.2d 747, 753 (Minn.App.2007) (citing Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d)). Not only did the court apply section 518.175, it applied section 518.175 as amended in 2006. The court did so on the grounds that appellate courts generally apply the law “ ‘as it exists at the time they rule on a case.’ ” Goldman, 725 N.W.2d at 751 (quoting Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Co. Bd., 617 N.W.2d 566, 575-76 (Minn.2000)).
The court of appeals then explained the relationship between the 2006 revisions to section 518.175 and Auge. Although the legislature has removed the Auge presumption in favor of the custodial parent, the court concluded that “when the district court denies a proposal to remove that prompts a change in the physical custody of the child, portions of the Auge holding remain intact,” Id. at 757-58. In particular, the court said “ ‘[i]f denial of the motion will likely result in a modification of custody, the [district] court must consider the negative effects of separating the child and the [primary caretaker].’” Id. at 757 (quoting Auge, 334 N.W.2d at 399). As a result, the court of appeals concluded that, the statutory revisions notwithstanding, Auge nevertheless continues to require an evidentiary hearing that fully addresses the child’s best interests before the district court can deny a motion by the custodial parent to remove the child from the state. Id. at 758.
The court of appeals thus reversed the district court’s denial of mother’s motions and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to hold an eviden-*289tiary hearing. At that hearing, as the court of appeals envisioned it, “[mother’s] reasons for the proposed move will be advanced under the statutory mandate to determine the child’s best interests.” Id. at 756. In addition, the court of appeals directed the district court to consider, under the auspices of section 518.18, “in the interests of the child, the impact on the child of what would functionally be a modification of custody.” Id. at 757. Finally, the court appeared to question the validity of any LaChapelle restrictions when it said: “We find no basis for departing from the foregoing statutory scheme to permit court-imposed limits on removal that put that relief beyond the reach of sole physical custodians in circumstances such as [mother’s].” Id. at 753.
I agree with the majority that the district court acted within the scope of its discretion when it included the locale restriction in its custody order. Therefore, to the extent the court of appeals either explicitly or implicitly invalidated LaCha-pelle restrictions, that part of its opinion is rejected. I also agree that Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d), not MinmStat. § 518.175, subd. 3, governs mother’s motion to remove I.G. to New York City. But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that mother failed to establish a prima facie case for modification that would entitle her to have an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, I conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied mother an evidentiary hearing, and I would reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, mother must make a prima facie showing of the four elements listed in section 518.18(d). These four elements as properly listed by the majority are: (1) a change in her own circumstances or those of I.G. or father; (2) modification is necessary to serve I.G.’s best interests; (3) I.G.’s present environment endangers his physical health, emotional health or emotional development; and (4) benefits of the move outweigh the detriments with respect to I.G. See Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153, 157 (Minn.1999), superseded in part on other grounds by Act of Apr. 27, 2000, ch. 444, art. 1, § 5, 2000 Minn. Laws 980-84 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d)(i) (2006)), as recognized in In re Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 711 (Minn. 2007); Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285, 291-92 (Minn.App.2007).
The majority correctly notes that the district court erred with respect to the first element — changed circumstances. Mother is engaged to a man who lives in New York and indicated that she had plans to marry him and live with him in New York. She also indicated that I.G. enjoys the company of mother’s fiancé and his family. Mother has sole physical custody of I.G. If she marries and decides to move to New York the existing court order mandates that sole physical custody of I.G. will be transferred from her to father. It is difficult to understand why the district court concluded that evidence of such a dramatic change in circumstances with respect to all three parties — mother, father and I.G. — did not establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances. We have a long history in Minnesota of protecting established relationships between par-entis) and child and may not treat changes in such relationships as lacking significance or substance. See Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 212 (Minn.1988) noting that we have “emphasized the importance of stability in custody determinations” and reaffirming our statement in Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 711 n. 1 (Minn. 1985), that four of the nine best interests criteria in Minn.Stat. § 517.17, subd. 1, “rest on the centrality of continuity of care and environment.”
*290Further, the failure of the district court to address this inevitable change in custody in a substantive manner leads directly to the second element — I.G.’s best interests. It is now over fíve-and-one-half years since the final decree dissolving the parents’ marriage was entered, and over six-and-one-half years since the LaCha-pelle locale restriction was imposed. Further, I.G. has been in mother’s sole physical custody since 1999. I.G.’s age has more than doubled since that date, and father’s other children are out of his home or may soon be. Moreover, mother represents in her affidavit that I.G. wants to move to New York with mother to benefit from his continuing relationship with her and the more diverse educational opportunities that are available to him there. Whether these assertions will hold up at a hearing is not known, but surely they are sufficient to establish a prima facie case and cannot be summarily dismissed by the court by stating, “The only person I’ve got telling me that is [mother] as far as the want goes.” Goldman, 725 N.W.2d at 760. While I conclude that mother’s sole physical custody and impending move are enough to establish a prima facie case that modification may be in I.G.’s best interests under Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d), these additional factors make the call on the second element just that much easier.
For many of the foregoing reasons, I also disagree with the majority’s analysis as to elements three and four — the impact on I.G.’s emotional health and emotional development and the weighing of the benefits and detriments to I.G. I find it difficult to question how a significant geographical separation from a parent, especially a parent who has sole physical custody for several years, does not at least amount to a prima facie showing that the separation may have an emotional impact on the child. If anything, we should start from the point that such a geographical separation from the parent who has had sole physical custody for over the past half-dozen years will have an emotional impact. Further, I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the statutory endangerment element only addresses the child’s present environment not future events that the petitioner asserts will most likely happen. I conclude that it would be an absurd result to require I.G.’s mother to move to New York and inflict emotional harm on I.G. before she can have a hearing to determine whether I.G. may move with her when mother’s marriage and move to New York is imminent and the danger of harm is apparent.
While the amended statute and our opinion today move us away from our holding and some of our conclusions in Auge, this separation from Auge does not, as the court of appeals properly concluded, undermine our conclusion that a denial of the primary caretaker’s request for removal may have “ ‘ “negative effects” and that district courts must consider the negative effects of separating the child and the [primary caretaker].’ ” Goldman, 725 N.W.2d at 757. (quoting Auge, 334 N.W.2d at 399). I.G. was born on January 30, 1996, the parties filed for dissolution of the marriage in December 1999, mother has had sole physical custody of I.G. since he was five-and-one-half years old, and he has spent the intervening time in the sole physical custody of mother. I.G. is now 12 years old.
As indicated earlier, I am not able to conclude from this record whether it is in I.G.’s best interests to go to New York to live with mother or to stay here with father. That is the problem — without an evidentiary hearing, there is no record. What I do know from this record is that there has been a prima facie showing that circumstances have changed for all parties since 1999 and 2001; I.G.’s emotional *291health and emotional development may be endangered by mother’s move and change in his physical custody; the benefits and detriments of the move have not been weighed; and in the end, I.G.’s best interests appear to be at stake. For me the threshold question in this case — whether mother has established a prima facie case for an evidentiary hearing under section 518.18(d) — is an easy call. I conclude that she has met that burden. Therefore, I would hold that the district court abused its discretion when it denied mother an evidentiary hearing and by so holding would affirm the result reached by the court of appeals to reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.