Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 257.025 (2026)

Custody And Parenting Time Disputes

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any custody or parenting time proceeding involving unmarried parents, the court shall consider section 518.175 and evaluate all relevant factors in section 518.17, subdivision 1, to determine the best interests of the child.

(b) The fact that the parents of the child are not or were never married to each other shall not be determinative of the custody and parenting time of the child.

(d) Section 518.619 applies to this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Matter of Welfare of Solomon, 291 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Welfare of Solomon, 291 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 14× “In the memorandum accompanying his order, the Family Court judge relied heavily on Minn.Stat. § 257.025 (1978), which provides a list of factors for a court to consider in evaluating the best interests of a child in a proceeding where two or more parties seek custody of that…”

In Re Custody of NAK, 649 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 10× “At the court of appeals Knauff argued that the district court's findings of fact were unsupported by the record, that it misapplied the law regarding the attorney fees, and that the best interests factors set forth in Minn.Stat. §§ 257.025 and 518.17 violate due process as…”

Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 7× “Finally, the court of appeals determined that the temporary custody determination made in the subsequent order for protection required particularized findings based upon the best interests of the child, citing Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a) (1990) and In re Marriage of Schmidt, 436 N.”

In Re the Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “See Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a) (1992) (listing relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child).”

Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 4× “This new tort would create a new burden on children who are already dislocated by the dissolution of their parents' marriage.”

In Re the Custody of N.M.O., 399 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 257.025 (1984). As between the two doctrines, the Minnesota Supreme Court has made it clear that one supersedes the other.”

In Re Custody of EAQD, 405 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “Even if we were to conclude that this type of a petition is not authorized by chapter 518, it appears that the Simpsons could have sought permanent custody by filing a substantially similar petition under Minn. Stat. § 257.025 (1984). See In Re Custody of N.”

In Re the Adoption of M.T.S., 489 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Because the state law at issue, Minn.Stat. § 257.025, does not provide a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian, it is preempted by the ICWA.”

In Re the Custody of A.K.H., 502 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a)(ll) (1992). Therefore, in the present case, the district court will necessarily require information regarding the proposed custodian’s ability to impart the values of Indian culture.”

In Re the Welfare of D.L., 486 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 2× “The legislature has defined the term in two places: at Minn.Stat. § 257.025, regarding custody disputes, and Minn.”

Boswell v. Boswell, 721 A.2d 662 (Md. 1998). “1998); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 257.025(a)(West 1998); Mo.”

Rodgers v. Knauff, 649 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 10× “At the court of appeals Knauff argued that the district court’s findings of fact were unsupported by the record, that it misapplied the law regarding the attorney fees, and that the best interests factors set forth in Minn.Stat. §§ 257.025 and 518.17 violate due process as…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 257.025(a) — 5 cases

Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992). “Finally, the court of appeals determined that the temporary custody determination made in the subsequent order for protection required particularized findings based upon the best interests of the child, citing Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a) (1990) and In re Marriage of Schmidt, 436 N.”

In Re the Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). “See Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a) (1992) (listing relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child).”

Boswell v. Boswell, 721 A.2d 662 (Md. 1998). “1998); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 257.025(a)(West 1998); Mo.”

In Re the Adoption of M.T.S., 489 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). “Because the state law at issue, Minn.Stat. § 257.025, does not provide a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian, it is preempted by the ICWA.”

Baker v. Baker, 481 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

— Minn. Stat. § 257.025(a)(ll) — 1 case

In Re the Custody of A.K.H., 502 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). “” Minn.Stat. § 257.025(a)(ll) (1992). Therefore, in the present case, the district court will necessarily require information regarding the proposed custodian’s ability to impart the values of Indian culture.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.