Finding Freedom: A Mother’s Journey to Create the Best Life for Her Son

A Narrative Story of Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1983)

Carol Ann Auge* felt her heart sink as she read the court’s denial letter. After months of careful planning and hope, the judge had refused to let her take her son Frank Jr. to Hawaii for part of each year. The weight of the decision pressed down on her shoulders like a heavy blanket of disappointment and frustration.

Carol had remarried and found new happiness with a loving husband who had business interests in Hawaii. Together with their two young children, they had created a beautiful blended family. The plan seemed perfect: spend the winter months in Hawaii where her husband could oversee his business, while Frank Jr. could attend a specialized school designed specifically for children with his unique educational needs.

The previous winter had been magical. Frank Jr. had thrived in Hawaii, attending the special school that understood his learning differences. His teachers there saw remarkable progress in both his educational and emotional development – something that filled Carol’s heart with joy and relief. As a mother, watching her son flourish was everything she had hoped for.

But now, sitting in her Minnesota home, Carol felt trapped between two impossible choices. The court’s decision meant she would have to choose between her new family’s future and staying with Frank Jr. The referee had dismissed their Hawaii plan, claiming it would be “educationally disruptive” and questioning whether there was a “deep business necessity” for the annual travel.

The anxiety was overwhelming. If she chose to accompany her husband and their two other children to Hawaii, Frank Jr. would have to stay behind with his father, Frank Sr. This meant her ex-husband – the noncustodial parent – would essentially gain custody for more than half of each year. The thought of being separated from her son for such long periods made her feel sick with worry.

Carol knew she had to fight for what was right. She had evidence that Frank Jr. was thriving in Hawaii. Teachers from his specialized school had provided affidavits showing his remarkable educational and emotional progress. Yet the court had denied her request again, this time without even holding a proper hearing where she could present this crucial evidence.

The stress was exhausting. Carol felt like the system was working against her, forcing her to make an impossible choice between her son and her new family’s wellbeing. She couldn’t understand why, as the custodial parent who had been successfully caring for Frank Jr., she wasn’t trusted to make decisions about what was best for him.

But Carol refused to give up. She decided to appeal the decision, determined to fight for her right as a mother to create the best possible life for her son. Deep down, she knew that Frank Jr.’s happiness and development in Hawaii proved this move was in his best interests.

When the Minnesota Supreme Court finally heard her case, everything changed. The justices understood what the lower court had missed – that denying her request was actually changing custody without proper procedures. They recognized that she, as the custodial parent, should have the presumptive right to make decisions about where she and Frank Jr. would live.

The moment Carol learned of the Supreme Court’s decision, waves of relief and validation washed over her. The court had reversed the lower court’s ruling and established a new legal precedent that would protect custodial parents across Minnesota. They ruled that custodial parents have a presumptive right to relocate with their children, and that courts cannot deny such requests without a full evidentiary hearing.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court recognized what Carol had known all along – that the wellbeing of the custodial parent and child are intertwined. They understood that forcing impossible choices between a parent and their new family unit was not in anyone’s best interest, especially the child’s.

The court’s decision brought Carol a profound sense of empowerment and peace of mind. Not only could she now pursue the life in Hawaii that would benefit both her and Frank Jr., but she had also helped establish legal protections for other parents facing similar situations. The Supreme Court had affirmed that custodial parents are “best-equipped to determine the child’s needs” and should be trusted to make decisions about their family’s future.

As Carol prepared for their new life splitting time between Minnesota and Hawaii, she felt confident and excited about the future. Frank Jr. would continue attending the specialized school where he had shown such remarkable progress, while their blended family could pursue the opportunities that awaited them. The court had recognized that what was good for their family unit as a whole was ultimately what was best for Frank Jr.

The Supreme Court’s ruling gave Carol something invaluable – the legal recognition that she, as a loving and capable mother, had the right to create the best possible life for her son. No longer would she have to choose between her child and her family’s future. Instead, she could embrace both, knowing that the law now supported her journey toward a brighter tomorrow.

*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 happens if I need to take my family law case to court and the other person lives in a different state or country?

Answer: Minnesota courts can only handle your case if specific legal requirements are met. For divorce, one spouse must live in Minnesota for 180 days before filing, and for custody cases involving different states, the child’s “home state” usually handles the case.

A Minnesota court may exercise jurisdiction over a dissolution or parentage proceeding only if statutory prerequisites are met. For divorce, at least one spouse must reside in Minnesota for 180 days immediately preceding the filing under Minnesota Statutes section 518.07, and personal service or consent establishes jurisdiction over the other spouse. When the parties or child reside in different states, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at sections 518D.101–518D.403, governs custody jurisdiction. The UCCJEA provides that the child’s “home state”—the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the action—is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for custody determinations. If Minnesota is not the home state but has significant connections and substantial evidence concerning the child, the court may exercise jurisdiction after consulting with the home state. For child-support matters, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), sections 518C.101–518C.902, determines jurisdiction and allows Minnesota to establish, enforce, and modify support orders when one party resides elsewhere. Internationally, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and reciprocal enforcement agreements may apply. Parties should consult counsel to ensure that their case is filed in the proper forum.

Question: How do courts decide which state or country should handle a custody or divorce case?

Answer: The child’s home state gets priority for custody decisions, and once a state makes a custody order following proper procedures, that state keeps control until the child and parents no longer live there. For divorce, you need to meet the residency requirements of the state where you file.

Courts apply different jurisdictional frameworks for custody and divorce. Under the UCCJEA, the child’s home state has priority to make an initial custody determination. A “home state” is where the child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six months immediately before the proceeding (or since birth for younger children). See Minnesota Statutes section 518D.102. If no home state exists, a court with significant connections and available evidence may assume jurisdiction. Once a state makes a custody order in compliance with the UCCJEA, that state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction until the child and parents no longer reside in the state or the issuing court relinquishes jurisdiction. Other states and countries must recognize and enforce the order under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and international treaties. For divorce, jurisdiction depends on residency: a court cannot dissolve a marriage unless one spouse meets the domicile requirements of the forum state. Minnesota requires six months of residence (§ 518.07). Thus, even if the parties marry elsewhere, a Minnesota court can dissolve the marriage and address custody if the statutory residency requirements are satisfied and the UCCJEA confers custody jurisdiction.

Question: Can my ex take the kids out of the country or to another state? What’s the legal standard?

Answer: It depends on your custody arrangement – if you have sole physical custody, you can move unless it interferes with the other parent’s court-ordered time, but with joint custody, you need the other parent’s consent or court approval. The parent wanting to move must prove it’s in the child’s best interests.

Relocation is governed by Minnesota Statutes section 518.175, subdivision 3. A parent with sole physical custody may move a child out of state unless the move would impair the other parent’s court-ordered parenting time, in which case the parent seeking to relocate must either obtain the other parent’s consent or a court order. A parent with joint physical custody must obtain the other parent’s consent or a court order regardless of the impact on parenting time. The relocating parent bears the burden of proving that the move is in the child’s best interests. The statute directs courts to consider: (1) the nature and quality of the child’s relationship with each parent and other significant persons; (2) the child’s age, developmental stage, and needs; (3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent through suitable parenting time; (4) whether the relocating parent has acted in good faith; (5) the effect of the move on the child’s emotional, physical, and educational development; (6) the reasons of each parent for seeking or opposing the move; (7) the effect on the child’s safety and well-being; and (8) any domestic-abuse history. See § 518.175, subd. 3(b). The move may be denied if it is motivated by a desire to interfere with the other parent’s relationship or if the court determines that relocation is not in the child’s best interests. For international travel, a parent must obtain the other parent’s consent or court approval; courts may require travel bonds, notarized authorizations, or parenting plans specifying travel restrictions to prevent abduction. The leading case Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1983), established that custodial parents generally may relocate unless the noncustodial parent shows the move is not in the child’s best interests; the statute now codifies a best-interest analysis and places the burden on the relocating parent.

Question: Will I lose custody if I move out of the house first? Can I take the kids with me when I leave?

Answer: Moving out doesn’t automatically lose you custody, but it can affect how courts view the situation since the longer children stay in one home, the more courts see that as the normal arrangement.

Leaving the marital home does not automatically forfeit custody, but it can affect how a court perceives the child’s living arrangements. Minnesota courts examine the totality of circumstances, including the child’s stability, the primary caretaker, and each parent’s willingness to encourage the other parent’s relationship. Family law authorities caution that when one parent moves out and leaves the child with the other parent, the court may view the child as integrated into the remaining parent’s home, which can support that parent’s claim for custody under Minnesota Statutes section 518.18. Conversely, a parent who removes the child from the home without a court order risks being accused of interference with custody or kidnapping.

A parent who wishes to leave a shared residence for safety or practical reasons should attempt to negotiate a temporary agreement or seek a court order. If domestic abuse is involved, a petition for an order for protection under Minnesota Statutes section 518B.01 can include temporary custody and residence provisions to permit the victim to relocate with the children. Minnesota case law stresses that courts will not penalize a parent for leaving an unstable or dangerous environment; however, the parent must promptly seek legal authority for any change in the child’s residence. Moving out first without the children does not automatically bar that parent from seeking custody, but the longer the child remains in one home, the more a court will view that arrangement as the status quo.