Blank v. Blank

930 N.W.2d 523 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married on May 19, 2011. The parties have two minor children: a daughter, who was born in 2011, and a son, who was born in 2014. W filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage in February 2017. W stated, 'I am and my spouse is able to provide support for the child(ren)' and asked that the court 'award joint legal custody of the children of this marriage.' H signed a voluntary appearance acknowledging receipt of a copy of the complaint. W offered a proposed parent-created parenting plan which was signed by both parties. W would have legal custody in that she 'shall have the legal responsibility and authority to make final decisions concerning the parenting functions necessary to raising the child(ren).' W's residence was listed as the principal place of residence subject to the terms of the plan. The plan detailed that the parties' work schedules would dictate the parenting times and indicated that the parties would be able to work together to minimize either party's paying for daycare. No order adopting this plan was entered by the district court. H filed another proposed parenting plan signed by both parties on May 11, 2017. This plan established that the 'parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor children and as such, shall maintain the legal responsibility and authority to make final decisions concerning the parenting functions necessary for raising the minor children.' The children's principal residences would be with both W and H and outlined a parenting time schedule for H. This plan also contained references to the parties' ability to coordinate adjustments to the schedule and discuss parenting decisions with each other. No order adopting the plan was entered by the district court. H filed a motion for temporary orders seeking 'joint temporary legal and physical care, custody[,] and control' of the children. The court entered a 'Temporary Order/Parenting Plan.' That order awarded temporary legal and physical custody to W and declared that each parent has full and equal access to the children's education and medical records and the authority to make emergency decisions affecting the health or safety of the children. The order further provided a parenting plan with continuous and easy telephone access and midweek, every-other-weekend, and alternating-holiday parenting time. A trial was held on the remaining issues to be decided, including 'custody of the parties' two minor children, parenting time, and financial issues concerning the children.' [The testimony given by W and H was mostly vanilla and the same testimony that is given by working couples who did a good job parenting their children.] This testimony was different. H admitted that he had punched a couple of holes in a basement wall within 2 or 3 years prior to trial while the children were upstairs in the home. H also admitted that he had 'open hand smacked' W at one point due to a disagreement that occurred 'so far in the past.' W agreed on rebuttal to her attorney's questioning that H 'slapped you at some point in the relationship.' H also testified that while W was watching their son, she kicked a hole in a door out of frustration, and testimony was received that w is more physical with the children than H. W requested that the court grant her sole custody and testified that she did not believe a shared custody arrangement was in the children's best interests. Counsel for W argued during the closing argument that this case is not appropriate for joint custody or a shared custody arrangement, 'as clearly there's enough conflict in here that that could create a problem for the children' and cause a 'significant upheaval' of the children's current structure, which was working. H requested that the court award him full custody. In the alternative, H asked for an award of joint custody. Counsel for H asserted, '[I]t's [not] good public policy to throw out joint custody simply because [W] doesn't want to put in any effort to do it' and 'We've heard a lot of testimony from [H] who says he's been more than willing to attempt to coparent as a joint family.' The court dissolved the marriage and awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children. In the event of impasses after discussion of major issues, H 'shall make the decision with respect to issues of health and religion' and W 'shall make the decision on education.' The court specifically found this was not a domestic abuse case. The court held that the parties have the ability to coparent and make contributions to the children and that joint custody is in the children's best interests. The court again declared that each parent has full and equal access to the children's education and medical records and the authority to make emergency decisions affecting the health or safety of the children. In an attached parenting plan, the court instructed that the parties share parenting time on a week-on-week-off basis with assigned midweek and holiday parenting times for the parent who does not have the children at that time. W appealed.