The Weight of Distance

A Narrative Story of the dilemmas of motions for a parent to relocate with the children in Minnesota family law matters.

Judge Harrison leaned back in his leather chair, the late afternoon sun casting long shadows across his chambers. The case file sat unopened on his desk. Martinez v. Martinez, another relocation motion that would require him to make one of the most difficult decisions in family law. Before diving into the particulars, he found himself doing what he always did with these cases: mentally preparing for the complexity ahead.

We are such a mobile society, he mused, remembering the statistics that had stuck with him over the years. Nearly half of all divorced parents would relocate within two years of separation. The numbers alone told a story of restlessness, of fresh starts, of economic necessity, of new relationships pulling people across state lines. But behind every statistic was a child caught between two parents, two homes, two different futures.

He thought about the young families that appeared before him most often. Parents in their twenties and thirties, the most mobile demographic, with toddlers and preschoolers in tow. These cases always felt the heaviest. The academic literature was clear about the particular vulnerabilities: disrupted attachment relationships, the heartbreaking phenomenon of father drop-out, the economic pressures that often drove these moves in the first place.

Twenty years ago, this would have been simpler, he reflected. Back then, if the custodial parent had a legitimate reason (a job, family support, a new spouse) the presumption favored the move. But the law had evolved, recognizing that each family’s circumstances were unique, that cookie-cutter approaches failed children. Now the states were all over the map: some presuming in favor of relocation, others against, some placing the burden on the moving parent, others on the one trying to prevent the move.

Judge Harrison appreciated Minnesota’s recent shift, requiring the moving party to prove their case. It seemed more protective of the child’s existing relationships. But he also understood the arguments on the other side. Sometimes a parent genuinely needed to move for their own well-being, and a happy, stable parent was usually better for the child than a trapped, resentful one.

He found himself thinking about the forensic risk assessment model that experts had developed. It made sense trying to identify which relocations posed the highest risk to children and which might actually benefit them. The risk factors ran through his mind like a checklist: very young children under six, teenagers navigating their own identity crises, long-distance moves that would make regular contact impossible, children with special needs who struggled with change.

Then there were the psychological factors such as the mental health and stability of the relocating parent, their willingness to facilitate the relationship with the other parent, the level of conflict between the parents. He’d seen too many cases where relocation became a weapon, where one parent used distance as a way to punish the other, with the child caught in the crossfire.

But there are protective factors too, he reminded himself. Some children were naturally adaptable, resilient. Some moves were shorter distances that wouldn’t completely sever the non-custodial relationship. Some parents, despite their differences, maintained effective co-parenting relationships and genuinely supported their child’s bond with the other parent.

The high-risk scenarios played out in his mind: a three-year-old being moved across the country by a parent who had already shown signs of gatekeeping behavior, cutting off a father who had been deeply involved in the child’s daily life. The potential for lasting harm was significant: research showed how these early disruptions could affect attachment patterns for years to come.

Conversely, he could envision lower-risk situations: a school-age child with an easygoing temperament, a move within the state that would allow for modified but continued regular contact, parents who despite their divorce had managed to communicate effectively about their child’s needs.

Judge Harrison knew that even in cases where relocation was necessary, the real work lay in crafting a parenting plan that would mitigate potential harm. It had to be practical—there was no point in ordering expensive travel that parents couldn’t afford. But it also had to preserve meaningful contact, recognizing that children needed both parents in their lives whenever possible.

He glanced at the unopened file again. Inside were the real facts he would need to weigh: the specific circumstances of this family, the reasons for the proposed move, the history of the parents’ relationship, the child’s particular needs and temperament. Every case was different, every family unique in its dynamics and challenges.

The burden of this decision, he thought, is knowing that whatever I decide will fundamentally alter this child’s life. Allow the move, and one parent might fade from the child’s daily experience. Deny it, and the other parent might remain trapped in circumstances that could affect their ability to provide stability and care.

Judge Harrison straightened in his chair and reached for the file. All of his knowledge about relocation law, all the research about risk factors and protective elements, all his years of experience with these heartbreaking decisions—it all came down to this moment of opening the file and learning about this particular family’s story.

Keep it all in mind, he told himself as his fingers touched the manila folder. Every factor, every consideration, every piece of wisdom the experts have shared. But remember that at the end of the day, it’s about this one child, this one family, and what will truly serve their best interests.

The file opened, and the real work began.

Question: What’s the difference between moving across town and moving out of state with the kids? How hard is it to relocate?

Answer: Moving within Minnesota typically does not require court permission, but significant moves may necessitate modifying parenting-time schedules. Parents must comply with existing orders regarding notice and cannot unilaterally change the child’s school or significantly reduce the other parent’s access. If a parent seeks to move the child’s residence outside Minnesota, the relocation statute applies. Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3(a) provides that a parent with whom the child resides “shall not move the residence of the child to another state” unless the other parent consents or the court orders the move. The statute requires the court to apply a best-interests standard when deciding whether to permit relocation. Relevant factors include the child’s relationships with both parents and other significant persons, the child’s age and developmental stage, the feasibility of preserving relationships through parenting-time arrangements, the child’s preference, patterns of conduct that promote or thwart the child’s relationship with the other parent, the benefits of relocation for the custodial parent and child, the reasons for seeking or opposing the move, and the effect of domestic abuse. The parent requesting the move bears the burden of proof unless that parent has been a victim of domestic abuse, in which case the burden shifts to the parent opposing the move.

Because relocation can substantially interfere with the nonmoving parent’s relationship, courts scrutinize requests carefully. A parent cannot move the child to another state simply for personal convenience; the move must be in the child’s best interests. On the other hand, moving across town may still require adjustments to parenting time but does not invoke the relocation statute. Parents should review their orders for notice requirements and consult an attorney before moving.

Question: Does joint physical custody mean 50/50 parenting time? How does it impact child support, relocation, or school choice?

Answer: Joint physical custody means that both parents share the routine daily care and control of the child, but it does not require an equal time division. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(8) explicitly states that joint physical custody “does not require an absolutely equal division of time”. Courts craft schedules that maximize each parent’s time with the child consistent with the child’s best interests. In some cases that may be a near-equal arrangement; in others, one parent will have more overnights due to work schedules, school proximity, or the child’s needs.

Because joint physical custody often results in substantial parenting time for both parents, it affects child support through the parenting expense adjustment. Under Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2–3, when parents have equal or nearly equal parenting time, the court determines who will pay support by comparing each parent’s share of the combined parental income; the parent with the higher share becomes the obligor. Thus, even in a 50/50 schedule, child support may be paid if there is an income disparity. The statute provides that when parents have equal incomes and equal parenting time, neither owes basic support. Id. When physical custody is joint but parenting time is significantly unequal, the adjustment reduces but does not eliminate the obligor’s support.

Relocation and school choice are governed by separate rules. If parents share joint legal custody and disagree on major decisions such as school enrollment, either may bring the issue to court; the court will decide based on the child’s best interests. See Himley v. Himley, No. A12-1876, 2013 WL 4504753 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2013) (unpublished) (resolving dispute over child’s school location). Relocating the child’s residence to another state requires court approval or the other parent’s consent. Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3(a) (2024) prohibits moving the child’s residence out of state without court order or the other parent’s consent and directs courts to apply a multi-factor best-interests analysis when deciding whether to permit the move. Therefore, joint physical custody does not give one parent unilateral authority to move or change schools; decisions must be made jointly or with court approval.

Question: How does custody impact child support?

Answer: Legal custody by itself does not determine child support. Minnesota calculates child support using the “income shares” model. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (directing courts to combine the parents’ gross incomes, determine each parent’s proportional share, and apply the guideline). The court then adjusts the basic support obligation based on parenting time. Under the parenting expense adjustment statute, a parent who has at least ten percent of the overnights receives a reduction in the basic support obligation to account for costs incurred during parenting time. Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1 (2024). If parents have equal parenting time but unequal incomes, the parent with the higher income will still pay support because each parent must contribute to the child’s needs in proportion to income. Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2–3 (providing that the obligor is the parent with the greater share of combined parental income when parents have equal overnight time). Therefore, while joint legal custody has no effect on support, joint physical custody affects support through the parenting expense adjustment. If parenting time changes substantially, either parent may seek modification of support under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2.