1.1 	A bill for an act
1.2 	relating to family law; changing certain procedures
1.3 	for removal of a child's residence from Minnesota;
1.4 	amending Minnesota Statutes 2004, sections 518.1705,
1.5 	subdivision 7; 518.175, subdivision 3; 518.18.
1.6 	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.7 	Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 518.1705,
1.8 	subdivision 7, is amended to read:
1.9 		Subd. 7.Moving the child to another state.  Parents may
1.10 	agree, but the court must not require, that in a parenting plan
1.11 	the factors in section 518.17 or 257.025, as applicable,upon
1.12 	the legal standard that will govern a decision concerning
1.13 	removal of a child's residence from this state, provided that:
1.14 	(1) both parents were represented by counsel when the
1.15 	parenting plan was approved; or
1.16 	(2) the court found the parents were fully informed, the
1.17 	agreement was voluntary, and the parents were aware of its
1.18 	implications.

1.19 	Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 518.175,
1.20 	subdivision 3, is amended to read:
1.21 		Subd. 3.Move to another state.  The parent with whom the
1.22 	child resides shall not move the residence of the child to
1.23 	another state except upon order of the court or with the consent
1.24 	of the other parent, if the other parent has been given
1.25 	parenting time by the decree.  If the purpose of the move is to
2.1 	interfere with parenting time given to the other parent by the
2.2 	decree, the court shall not permit the child's residence to be
2.3 	moved to another state.
2.4 	The court shall apply a best interests standard when
2.5 	considering the request of the parent with whom the child
2.6 	resides to move the child's residence to another state.  The
2.7 	factors the court must consider in determining the child's best
2.8 	interests include, but are not limited to, the following:
2.9 	(1) the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and
2.10 	duration of the child's relationship with the person proposing
2.11 	to relocate and with the nonrelocating person, siblings, and
2.12 	other significant persons in the child's life;
2.13 	(2) the age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and
2.14 	the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's
2.15 	physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into
2.16 	consideration any special needs of the child;
2.17 	(3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between
2.18 	the nonrelocating person and the child through suitable
2.19 	parenting time arrangements, considering the logistics and
2.20 	financial circumstances of the parties;
2.21 	(4) the child's preference, taking into consideration the
2.22 	age and maturity of the child;
2.23 	(5) whether there is an established pattern of conduct of
2.24 	the person seeking the relocation either to promote or thwart
2.25 	the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating person;
2.26 	(6) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the
2.27 	general quality of the life for both the custodial parent
2.28 	seeking the relocation and the child including, but not limited
2.29 	to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;
2.30 	(7) the reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the
2.31 	relocation; and 
2.32 	(8) the effect on the safety and welfare of the child, or
2.33 	of the parent requesting to move the child's residence, of
2.34 	domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01.
2.35 	The burden of proof is upon the parent requesting to move
2.36 	the residence of the child to another state, except that if the
3.1 	court finds the existence of domestic abuse between the parents,
3.2 	the burden of proof is upon the parent opposing the move.  The
3.3 	court must consider all of the factors in this subdivision in
3.4 	determining the best interests of the child.

3.5 	Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 518.18, is
3.6 	amended to read:
3.7 	518.18 MODIFICATION OF ORDER.
3.8 	(a) Unless agreed to in writing by the parties, no motion
3.9 	to modify a custody order or parenting plan may be made earlier
3.10 	than one year after the date of the entry of a decree of
3.11 	dissolution or legal separation containing a provision dealing
3.12 	with custody, except in accordance with paragraph (c).
3.13 	(b) If a motion for modification has been heard, whether or
3.14 	not it was granted, unless agreed to in writing by the parties
3.15 	no subsequent motion may be filed within two years after
3.16 	disposition of the prior motion on its merits, except in
3.17 	accordance with paragraph (c).
3.18 	(c) The time limitations prescribed in paragraphs (a) and
3.19 	(b) shall not prohibit a motion to modify a custody order or
3.20 	parenting plan if the court finds that there is persistent and
3.21 	willful denial or interference with parenting time, or has
3.22 	reason to believe that the child's present environment may
3.23 	endanger the child's physical or emotional health or impair the
3.24 	child's emotional development.
3.25 	(d) If the court has jurisdiction to determine child
3.26 	custody matters, the court shall not modify a prior custody
3.27 	order or a parenting plan provision which specifies the child's
3.28 	primary residence unless it finds, upon the basis of facts,
3.29 	including unwarranted denial of, or interference with, a duly
3.30 	established parenting time schedule, that have arisen since the
3.31 	prior order or that were unknown to the court at the time of the
3.32 	prior order, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of
3.33 	the child or the parties and that the modification is necessary
3.34 	to serve the best interests of the child.  In applying these
3.35 	standards the court shall retain the custody arrangement or the
3.36 	parenting plan provision specifying the child's primary
4.1 	residence that was established by the prior order unless:
4.2 	(i) the court finds that a change in the custody
4.3 	arrangement or primary residence is in the best interests of the
4.4 	child and the parties previously agreed, in a writing approved
4.5 	by a court, to apply the best interests standard in section
4.6 	518.17 or 257.025, as applicable; and, with respect to
4.7 	agreements approved by a court on or after April 28, 2000, both
4.8 	parties were represented by counsel when the agreement was
4.9 	approved or the court found the parties were fully informed, the
4.10 	agreement was voluntary, and the parties were aware of its
4.11 	implications;
4.12 	(ii) both parties agree to the modification;
4.13 	(iii) the child has been integrated into the family of the
4.14 	petitioner with the consent of the other party; or 
4.15 	(iv) the child's present environment endangers the child's
4.16 	physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional
4.17 	development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of
4.18 	environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the
4.19 	child; or 
4.20 	(v) the court has denied a request of the primary custodial
4.21 	parent to move the residence of the child to another state, and
4.22 	the primary custodial parent has relocated to another state
4.23 	despite the court's order.
4.24 	In addition, a court may modify a custody order or
4.25 	parenting plan under section 631.52.
4.26 	(e) In deciding whether to modify a prior joint custody
4.27 	order, the court shall apply the standards set forth in
4.28 	paragraph (d) unless:  (1) the parties agree in writing to the
4.29 	application of a different standard, or (2) the party seeking
4.30 	the modification is asking the court for permission to move the
4.31 	residence of the child to another state.
4.32 	(f) If a parent has been granted sole physical custody of a
4.33 	minor and the child subsequently lives with the other parent,
4.34 	and temporary sole physical custody has been approved by the
4.35 	court or by a court-appointed referee, the court may suspend the
4.36 	obligor's child support obligation pending the final custody
5.1 	determination.  The court's order denying the suspension of
5.2 	child support must include a written explanation of the reasons
5.3 	why continuation of the child support obligation would be in the
5.4 	best interests of the child.