Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berndt v. Berndt, 292 N.W.2d 1.

63 citing documents.

Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Vangsness v. Vangsness 607 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-23 (Minn.1990) ( and quoting Minn.Stat.
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Silbaugh v. Silbaugh 543 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Schumm v. Schumm 510 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Schumm v. Schumm 510 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
Larson v. Dunn 460 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1990
La-Belle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173 , State v. Waslie, 277 Minn. 446 , Minn. Stat. § 257.025 (1988).
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 452 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 452 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Maxfield v. Maxfield 439 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS Standard of Review “Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” ( ).
Durkin v. Hinich 442 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1989
Durkin v. Hinich 442 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1989
In Re the Marriage of McCabe v. McCabe 430 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Marriage of McCabe v. McCabe 430 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
LaValle v. LaValle 430 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
LaValle v. LaValle 430 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
Rigwald v. Rigwald 423 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rigwald v. Rigwald 423 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(“the ultimate test in all custody cases is the best interests of the child”); State v. Halverson, 127 Minn. 387, 389 , 149 N.W.
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Imdieke v. Imdieke 411 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1, when the evidence indicates that both parents would be suitable custodians, the intimacy of the relationship between the primary parent and the child should not be disrupted “without strong reasons which relate specifically to the [primary] parent’s capacity to provide and care for the child.” ().
Marriage of Mowers v. Mowers 406 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mowers v. Mowers 406 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 395 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Uhl v. Uhl 395 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
sideration of other relevant factors, mandate that, when the evidence indicates that both parents would be suitable custodians, the intimacy of the relationship between the primary parent and the child should not be disrupted “without strong reasons which relate specifically to the [primary] parent’s capacity to provide and care for the child.” Pikula, d at 711 ().
Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny 394 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Novotny v. Novotny 394 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As we further noted in Berndt [ , (Minn.1980) ], a court order separating a child from the primary parent could thus rarely be deemed in the child’s best interests.
Ryan v. Ryan 393 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ryan v. Ryan 393 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[T]he ultimate test in all custody cases is the best interests of the child.” (citing Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Hemingsen v. Hemingsen 393 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hemingsen v. Hemingsen 393 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 391 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 391 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Speltz v. Speltz 386 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Speltz v. Speltz 386 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pekarek v. Pekarek 384 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This statute requires that if either parent would be a suitable custodian, the intimacy of the relationship between the primary parent and the child must be salvaged unless there are “ ‘strong reasons which relate specifically to the [primary] parent’s capacity to provide and care for the child.’” Pikula, d at 711 ().
Marriage of Jones v. Jones 377 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Jones v. Jones 377 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minn. Stat. § 518.17 (1984)
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
Marriage of Pikula v. Pikula 374 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1985
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985