Pikula v. Pikula

374 N.W.2d 705 (1985)

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

Kelly (W) and H were married on March 29, 1980, when Kelly was 17 and Dana 20. At the time of their marriage, their older daughter, Tiffany, was 8 months old. Prior to Tiffany's birth, they had lived with Kelly's sister, Denise, in St. Paul. After the baby was born, the family moved to Brainerd, H's hometown, where they had frequent contact with H's parents and sisters. The Pikula family is closely knit. H took a job with his father's trucking company, working a split shift as a driver. W had a second daughter, Tanisha, in 1981, and finished high school while taking care of the children and managing the home. Both H and W were imperfect parents. H was an alcoholic. W had a very short temper. While their divorce trial was pending, they agreed to joint custody of the children. Three professional social workers recommended that custody be awarded to W. The trial court found there is a strong, stable, religious family group relationship within the Pikula family that has been developed, nurtured and cultivated over the years. The court found it was in the best interest of the children that they are kept in the cultural family environment. The court found that W lives in the exact opposite of that in which H lives and would subject the children to considerable uncertainty and instability in the home. The court awarded custody to H. W appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed holding that the trial court abused its discretion as it did not consider the statutory factors and disregarded all evidence reflecting negatively on H and disregarded substantial evidence in favor of W. H appealed.