Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2026)

Modification Of Order

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) Unless agreed to in writing by the parties, no motion to modify a custody order or parenting plan may be made earlier than one year after the date of the entry of a decree of dissolution or legal separation containing a provision dealing with custody, except in accordance with paragraph (c).

(b) If a motion for modification has been heard, whether or not it was granted, unless agreed to in writing by the parties no subsequent motion may be filed within two years after disposition of the prior motion on its merits, except in accordance with paragraph (c).

(c) The time limitations prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not prohibit a motion to modify a custody order or parenting plan if the court finds that there is persistent and willful denial or interference with parenting time, or has reason to believe that the child's present environment may endanger the child's physical or emotional health or impair the child's emotional development.

(d) If the court has jurisdiction to determine child custody matters, the court shall not modify a prior custody order or a parenting plan provision which specifies the child's primary residence unless it finds, upon the basis of facts, including unwarranted denial of, or interference with, a duly established parenting time schedule, that have arisen since the prior order or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior order, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the parties and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. In applying these standards the court shall retain the custody arrangement or the parenting plan provision specifying the child's primary residence that was established by the prior order unless:

(i) the court finds that a change in the custody arrangement or primary residence is in the best interests of the child and the parties previously agreed, in a writing approved by a court, to apply the best interests standard in section 518.17 or 257.025, as applicable; and, with respect to agreements approved by a court on or after April 28, 2000, both parties were represented by counsel when the agreement was approved or the court found the parties were fully informed, the agreement was voluntary, and the parties were aware of its implications;

(ii) both parties agree to the modification;

(iii) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the other party;

(iv) the child's present environment endangers the child's physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child; or

(v) the court has denied a request of the primary custodial parent to move the residence of the child to another state, and the primary custodial parent has relocated to another state despite the court's order.

In addition, a court may modify a custody order or parenting plan under section 631.52.

(e) In deciding whether to modify a prior joint custody order, the court shall apply the standards set forth in paragraph (d) unless: (1) the parties agree in writing to the application of a different standard, or (2) the party seeking the modification is asking the court for permission to move the residence of the child to another state.

(f) If a parent has been granted sole physical custody of a minor and the child subsequently lives with the other parent, and temporary sole physical custody has been approved by the court or by a court-appointed referee, the court may suspend the obligor's child support obligation pending the final custody determination. The court's order denying the suspension of child support must include a written explanation of the reasons why continuation of the child support obligation would be in the best interests of the child.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 232 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 171× “3, (2006), governed mother's motion "because a locale condition is an integral part of the prior `custody order.”

Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 68× “We conclude that the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1998) for modification of sole physical custody apply even when the parties have stipulated to a different standard in their dissolution decree.”

Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer, 897 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 19× “We conclude that the March 2015 order, though appealable, erroneously modified custody without complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2016). Thus, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further proceedings…”

Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 25× “Appellant claims that the court of appeals improperly applied the “endangerment” standard of Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d) (1992) rather than the “best-interests-of-the-child” standard required by section 518.”

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 725 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 63× “Appellant challenges, as a matter of law, the district court’s application of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (2004) to her removal motion and disputes the district court’s analysis of evidence she submitted to establish a prima facie case for removal.”

Marriage of Dabrowski v. Dabrowski, 477 N.W.2d 761 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 28× “17 (1990), but noted that even if the more stringent “impairment” standard of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1990) were applied, respondent had met her burden of proving physical and emotional impairment.”

In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “Accordingly, we need not address mother’s argument that the *336 district court’s purported modification of custody or the child’s primary residence is defective because it fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (2012). II. Alternatively, mother…”

State on Behalf of Gunderson v. Preuss, 336 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 16× “Because the trial court’s findings in support of its decision to transfer custody of a child from the mother to the father do not comply with the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1982), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

Christensen v. Healey (In re M.J.H.), 913 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 21× “Christensen and appellant Danielle Marie Healey are the parents of a minor child. The parties stipulated to an initial order that granted Healey sole physical custody, subject to Christensen's parenting time.”

Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen, 702 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “” In light of this statute’s explicit requirement of a hearing to impose a limitation on a custodial parent’s authority, a requirement not explicitly found in Minn. Stat. § 518.18 , we hold that an evidentiary hearing is required as a matter of law under Minn.”

Marriage of Keith v. Keith, 429 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 40× “Trial court's must apply Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (custody modification), not Minn.”

Marriage of Rinker v. Rinker, 358 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 12× “ISSUE Is evidence sufficient to support a finding for change of custody of one of the children of the parties? ANALYSIS When examining a proposal to change custody of a child, the trial court must consider factors specified in Minn.”

Show all 232 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(4) — 1 case

Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson, 376 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(a) — 9 cases

Rutz v. Rutz, 644 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).

Marriage of Ross v. Ross, 477 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 725 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). “Appellant challenges, as a matter of law, the district court’s application of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (2004) to her removal motion and disputes the district court’s analysis of evidence she submitted to establish a prima facie case for removal.”

Marriage of Keith v. Keith, 429 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Trial court's must apply Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (custody modification), not Minn.”

Marriage of King v. Carroll, 356 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(b) — 13 cases

In Re Welfare of BKP, 662 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).

Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz, 438 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Marriage of Tran Thi Ngoc Johnson v. Smith, 374 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

Dabill v. Dabill, 514 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).

Marriage of Clark v. Clark, 358 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(c) — 13 cases

Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz, 438 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Marriage of Ross v. Ross, 477 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

Marriage of Grein v. Grein, 364 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 1985).

Marriage of Keith v. Keith, 429 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Trial court's must apply Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (custody modification), not Minn.”

Marriage of Smith v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d) — 108 cases

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008). “3, (2006), governed mother's motion "because a locale condition is an integral part of the prior `custody order.”

In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe v. Ryan Michael Rupe, 855 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, we need not address mother’s argument that the *336 district court’s purported modification of custody or the child’s primary residence is defective because it fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (2012). II. Alternatively, mother…”

Marriage of Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993). “Appellant claims that the court of appeals improperly applied the “endangerment” standard of Minn.Stat. § 518.18(d) (1992) rather than the “best-interests-of-the-child” standard required by section 518.”

In re the Marriage of: Denise Louise Spanier v. Terence Urban Spanier, 852 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).

Marriage of Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1999). “We conclude that the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 518.18 (1998) for modification of sole physical custody apply even when the parties have stipulated to a different standard in their dissolution decree.”

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(i) — 5 cases

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008). “3, (2006), governed mother's motion "because a locale condition is an integral part of the prior `custody order.”

Underdahl v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007).

Rogge v. Rogge, 509 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).

Elgard v. Dudley, 471 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

In re the Matter of: Calvin James Omtvedt v. Amanda Marie Jansen (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(ii) — 2 cases

Marriage of Westphal v. Westphal, 457 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).

Marriage of Downey v. Zwigart, 378 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iii) — 37 cases

Marriage of Taflin v. Taflin, 366 N.W.2d 315 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

Marriage of Rinker v. Rinker, 358 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “ISSUE Is evidence sufficient to support a finding for change of custody of one of the children of the parties? ANALYSIS When examining a proposal to change custody of a child, the trial court must consider factors specified in Minn.”

Marriage of Young v. Young, 370 N.W.2d 57 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

Marriage of Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersen, 310 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. 1981).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) — 16 cases

Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008). “3, (2006), governed mother's motion "because a locale condition is an integral part of the prior `custody order.”

Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen, 702 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “” In light of this statute’s explicit requirement of a hearing to impose a limitation on a custodial parent’s authority, a requirement not explicitly found in Minn. Stat. § 518.18 , we hold that an evidentiary hearing is required as a matter of law under Minn.”

Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen, 767 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).

Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer, 897 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 2017). “We conclude that the March 2015 order, though appealable, erroneously modified custody without complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2016). Thus, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further proceedings…”

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(e) — 7 cases

Marriage of Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

Johnson-Smolak v. Fink, 703 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

Marriage of Barr v. Barr, 416 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).

— Minn. Stat. § 518.18(f) — 1 case

Nolte v. Mehrens, 648 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).

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.