A Father’s Connection: Overcoming Distance to Stay Close to His Son

A Narrative Story of In re the Marriage of Himley, A12-1876 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)

Ryan Thomas Himley* felt his heart sink when he discovered what Laura had done. Without any warning, without any discussion, his ex-wife had moved their eight-year-old son P.H. from New Ulm to Elk River – and she was planning to enroll him in school there without Ryan’s knowledge or consent. As a father who had fought hard to maintain a close relationship with his son after their divorce, Ryan felt a familiar wave of frustration and determination wash over him.

The pattern was all too familiar. When Ryan and Laura separated in 2007, she had immediately moved P.H. to New Ulm to live with her parents, putting significant distance between Ryan and his son. During their divorce proceedings in 2009, the court had noted their “terrible relationship with one another” and their inability to cooperate on parenting issues. Despite these challenges, the judge had recognized that both Ryan and Laura were good parents and that P.H. had strong relationships with both of them.

The court had awarded them joint physical custody, but the practical reality was that P.H. lived with Laura in New Ulm during the school year and spent summers with Ryan in Edina. Ryan treasured those summer months when he could be a full-time father, but the school-year arrangement meant he only saw his son on alternating weekends and holidays. The 80-mile distance between New Ulm and Edina made frequent contact difficult and expensive.

Now, in June 2012, Laura had done it again. She had married her new husband and moved even further away – this time to Elk River, ostensibly to be closer to her husband’s job in Anoka. But Ryan couldn’t help but notice that Laura had chosen to live in Elk River, which was actually farther north than even her husband’s workplace. It felt like another deliberate attempt to limit his access to P.H.

The move filled Ryan with anxiety and anger. He had worked so hard to build a strong relationship with his son despite the geographical challenges. P.H. had formed close bonds not just with Ryan, but with Ryan’s nine-year-old stepdaughter as well. The children had become like siblings, and P.H. looked forward to the time he spent with his extended family in Edina.

Ryan also knew that P.H. had established friendships and connections in the Edina community. The boy had participated in summer sports programs there and was familiar with the area. In contrast, Elk River was completely foreign to P.H. – he had no friends there, no connections, no sense of belonging beyond his mother and stepfather.

From a practical standpoint, Ryan realized that having P.H. attend school in Edina would be far better for everyone involved. Ryan’s flexible work schedule meant he could be home with P.H. before and after school, eliminating the need for daycare. Laura, on the other hand, worked as a teacher in Monticello, which would require P.H. to be in outside care if he attended school in Elk River.

Most importantly, Ryan believed that attending school in Edina would give P.H. more opportunities to develop their father-son relationship – something that had been consistently “thwarted” by Laura’s residential choices over the years. Ryan felt like he was constantly fighting against Laura’s efforts to minimize his role in their son’s life.

The decision to file a motion with the court was difficult but necessary. Ryan knew that as joint legal custodians, both he and Laura had equal rights to participate in major decisions about P.H.’s upbringing, including his education. Laura had violated this principle by unilaterally deciding to enroll P.H. in Elk River schools without his consent.

Ryan felt confident that his request was reasonable and in P.H.’s best interests. He wasn’t asking for anything dramatic – just that their son attend school in a community where he already had relationships and connections, where he could receive excellent academic and athletic opportunities, and where he could spend quality time with his father and stepsister.

When the case went before the Sherburne County District Court, Ryan felt nervous but hopeful. He had documented his concerns about Laura’s pattern of using residential moves to limit his access to P.H. He had evidence of the practical benefits of P.H. attending school in Edina, from the superior academic and athletic programs to the elimination of daycare needs.

The court’s decision brought Ryan tremendous relief and validation. The judge found that while P.H. would receive a satisfactory education in either Edina or Elk River, attending school in Edina would better serve his best interests. The court recognized that P.H. had existing relationships with other children in Edina, would not need before- or after-school care, and could further develop his close relationship with his stepsister.

Most significantly, the court acknowledged what Ryan had been experiencing for years – that Laura had used her living situation to limit his access to P.H. The judge found that ordering P.H. to attend school in Edina would “create more opportunities for [P.H.] to develop the relationship with his father that was thwarted by [Laura’s] residence in New Ulm.”

The court also modified the parenting-time schedule to accommodate the new school arrangement. Instead of having P.H. only on alternating weekends during the school year, Ryan would now have him on weekdays (except Wednesday nights) and every other weekend. During the summer, when Laura didn’t work, the schedule would flip to give her more quality time with P.H.

When Laura appealed the decision, Ryan felt anxious about potentially losing this victory. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, recognizing that the school decision and parenting-time modification were both in P.H.’s best interests. The appellate court understood that the parenting-time change was a necessary consequence of the school decision, not a separate custody modification requiring a higher legal standard.

The Court of Appeals also noted that the new summer schedule would actually give Laura significantly more quality time with P.H., since she didn’t work during those months. The court found that the modified arrangement would “maximize [P.H.’s] time with his parents” – exactly what Ryan had been hoping for.

The final victory brought Ryan a profound sense of empowerment and hope for the future. After years of feeling like he was fighting an uphill battle to maintain a meaningful relationship with his son, the courts had recognized his rights as a father and P.H.’s need for strong connections with both parents.

Ryan could finally look forward to being a more active, day-to-day presence in his son’s life. P.H. would attend school in a community where he had friends and family connections, and Ryan would have the opportunity to be involved in his daily routine – helping with homework, attending school events, and simply being present for all the small moments that make up a childhood.

The court’s decision represented more than just a legal victory – it was validation that Ryan’s love for his son and his commitment to being an involved father were recognized and protected by the law. P.H. would benefit from having both parents actively involved in his life, and Ryan could move forward with confidence, knowing that his parental rights were secure.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: What’s the difference between legal and physical custody?

Answer: Legal custody means the right to make important decisions about your child’s life like education and healthcare, while physical custody means “the routine daily care and control of the child” which admittedly is a wholly unhelpful definition; it can also mean where the child lives day-to-day. Parents can share both types or have one parent handle each type differently.

Minnesota law distinguishes between legal and physical custody. “Legal custody” means the right to determine the child’s upbringing, including education, health care, and religious training. Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3(a) (2024). Legal custody can be sole—where one parent makes these major decisions—or joint, where both parents share decision-making authority. “Physical custody and residence” means the routine daily care and control of the child and the physical residence of the child. Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3(c) (2024). Physical custody may also be sole or joint. Joint legal custody does not necessarily coincide with joint physical custody; parents may share decision-making while one parent provides most day-to-day care, or vice versa. When parents disagree about a major decision under joint legal custody, the court may resolve the dispute. See Himley v. Himley, No. A12-1876, 2013 WL 4504753, at *1–2 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2013) (unpublished) (holding that joint legal custody requires parents to bring impasses to court rather than act unilaterally).

Question: What are the best-interest factors a court considers in deciding custody and parenting time?

Answer: Courts must consider what’s best for the child by looking at twelve different factors including the child’s needs, each parent’s ability to care for the child, and how the arrangement affects the child’s relationships and daily life.

The law specifies that in all custody and parenting-time determinations, Minnesota courts must consider the child’s best interests. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2024) lists twelve non-exclusive factors:

1. The child’s physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and other needs and the effect of the proposed arrangements on those needs.
2. Any special medical, mental-health, developmental, disability, or educational needs the child may have.
3. The child’s reasonable preference, if the child is of sufficient ability, age, and maturity.
4. Whether domestic abuse has occurred in either parent’s household and its implications for parenting and the child’s safety.
5. Any physical, mental, or chemical-dependency issues of a parent that affect the child’s safety.
6. The history and nature of each parent’s participation in providing care for the child.
7. Each parent’s willingness and ability to provide ongoing care and to meet the child’s developmental, emotional, spiritual, and cultural needs.
8. The effect on the child’s well-being of changes to home, school, and community.
9. The effect of the proposed arrangements on the child’s relationships with parents, siblings, and significant persons.
10. The benefit to the child in maximizing parenting time with both parents and the detriment in limiting time with either parent.
11. Except in cases involving domestic abuse, each parent’s disposition to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
12. Each parent’s willingness and ability to cooperate, share information, and use methods for resolving disputes.

Subdivision 1(b) directs courts to make detailed findings on each factor and prohibits relying on one factor to the exclusion of others. The statute recognizes that there is no presumption for or against joint physical custody, but states that joint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time. There is a rebuttable presumption against joint legal or physical custody when domestic abuse has occurred. Courts must explain how each factor influenced their decision, ensuring that custody determinations are tailored to the child’s specific needs and circumstances.

Question: What is a parenting plan and how is it different from a regular custody order?

Answer: A parenting plan is a more flexible alternative to traditional custody orders that lets parents create detailed schedules and divide decision-making responsibilities in ways that work best for their specific family situation.

A parenting plan is an alternative to traditional custody labels. Under Minn. Stat. § 518.1705, parents may agree or the court may order a parenting plan that governs the schedule of time each parent spends with the child, decision-making responsibilities, and a method for resolving disputes. The plan must promote the child’s best interests and must be confirmed by the court. Although the plan may eschew the terms “legal custody” and “physical custody,” it must include a designation of those labels solely for the purposes of enforcing the plan under federal laws such as the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. Minn. Stat. § 518.1705, subd. 1(b)–(c). A parenting plan gives parents flexibility to craft arrangements tailored to their family, using detailed schedules and allocating decision-making authority on an issue-by-issue basis. Traditional custody orders, by contrast, label one parent as the sole legal or physical custodian (or designate joint custody) and may provide less detailed schedules. Parenting plans are particularly useful where parents can cooperate; the statute prohibits requiring a parenting plan if either parent objects or there is a history of domestic abuse. Modifications to decision-making or the schedule must be confirmed by court order and generally follow the timing restrictions in Minn. Stat. § 518.18. See Minn. Stat. § 518.1705, subd. 9.