Embracing Strength: Kelly’s Fight for Her Daughters and Herself

A Narrative Story of Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1985)

Kelly Pikula* was just seventeen when she married Dana, her high-school sweetheart. Not long after, they welcomed their first daughter, Tiffany. At first, they lived with Kelly’s sister before moving to Dana’s hometown of Brainerd, where his extended family gathered often for holidays and celebrations. Dana worked long hours for his father’s trucking company, and Kelly managed the responsibilities of finishing high school while caring for Tiffany and, later, their second daughter, Tanisha.

Kelly devoted herself to her girls. She prepared their meals, kept their home in order, and made sure they felt loved and secure. But as the years passed, tension began to build. Dana drank heavily, and his temper sometimes turned physical. He promised to seek help, attending a few counseling sessions and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but soon returned to drinking. The strain left Kelly feeling trapped and anxious.

One evening during a visit to Kelly’s sister’s home in St. Paul, Dana arrived late and insisted Kelly and the children leave with him immediately. When she hesitated, the situation escalated. In the car, he drove recklessly and refused to let her comfort the girls. Back home, he told Kelly he would take the children away so she could know what it felt like to be alone. Fearing for her daughters’ safety, Kelly left and found refuge at a shelter for battered women.

At first, Kelly and Dana tried a temporary joint-custody arrangement, rotating days in their home. Kelly continued caring for her daughters—feeding them, taking them to preschool, reading bedtime stories—even when they stayed at the shelter. Social workers observed the family and consistently noted that Kelly put the children’s needs ahead of her own, offered them stability, and maintained a loving, safe environment.

When the custody case went to trial, Kelly presented her plan to move temporarily to her sister’s home in Maplewood while finding a job and her own apartment. Dana objected, wanting to keep the children in Brainerd, even though his work kept him away most of the day and the children would primarily be cared for by his mother. Despite multiple social workers recommending custody to Kelly, the trial court awarded custody to Dana, citing the strength of his extended family and criticizing Kelly’s environment.

Feeling devastated but resolute, Kelly appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the custody award, finding that the trial court had overlooked key statutory factors and disregarded the social workers’ recommendations. Dana then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the “primary caretaker” in custody decisions. When one parent had been the primary caretaker—responsible for daily routines like meals, baths, medical appointments, and bedtime—continuity with that parent was crucial unless strong evidence showed unfitness. The case was sent back to determine the primary caretaker, effectively undoing the earlier award to Dana.

For Kelly, the decision was a turning point. It validated the countless unseen moments she had spent caring for her daughters and affirmed the deep bond they shared. Though the legal process wasn’t over, she left the courthouse feeling stronger, more confident, and ready to keep building a safe, stable future for Tiffany and Tanisha.

*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 if my child refuses to visit the other parent? Does their age matter?

Answer: No, the parenting time must happen as can be seen in the following analysis

What if my child refuses to visit the other parent?

Parents must follow court-ordered visits even if their child doesn’t want to go. The parent with the child must encourage visits and could get in trouble with the court if they don’t try to make visits happen.

Minnesota parents are required to comply with court-ordered parenting time. A child’s refusal to see the other parent does not give the custodial parent the authority to unilaterally suspend visits. The parent who has the child must encourage the child to participate in parenting time and may face contempt or a modification motion if they fail to do so. Courts will consider the reasons for the child’s resistance; if the child’s refusal is based on neglect or danger, the court may modify the order, but if the resistance is fueled by a parent’s negativity or manipulation, the court may impose sanctions on the non-cooperating parent.

How much does a child’s opinion matter in custody decisions based on their age?

Courts consider what children want, but no child gets to automatically choose which parent to live with. The older and more mature the child, the more their opinion matters, but courts still look at many other factors to decide what’s best.

Under Minnesota’s “best interest” standard, courts do take a child’s preference into account, but no statute gives a child an absolute right to choose a parent. Minnesota Statutes section 518.17 directs courts to evaluate numerous factors, including the child’s physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual and other needs, the child’s existing relationships, and the reasonable preference of the child “if the court deems the child to be of sufficient ability, age, and maturity to express an independent, reliable preference.” Authorities notes that an older teenager’s preference may justify modifying custody, yet it also emphasizes that the court will not abdicate its responsibility to determine custody merely because a child expresses a preference. Minnesota cases explain that a preference from a twelve-year-old child is not controlling but may be considered alongside the best-interest factors. For example, the court in Pikula v. Pikula affirmed that an older child’s expressed desire to live with the other parent is one factor among many and does not automatically warrant a custody change, especially where the child’s environment with the custodial parent is stable and nurturing, 374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1985). Conversely, if a child has integrated into the noncustodial parent’s home and the current environment endangers the child’s health or emotional development, modification may be appropriate. Ultimately, the court must weigh the child’s maturity and reasons for refusing visits and fashion a remedy—such as counseling, gradual transitions, or supervised parenting time—that serves the child’s best interests.