Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chapman v. Chapman, 352 N.W.2d 437.

52 citing documents.

In re the Paternity of: B. L. T., T. L. M., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Joint custody should not be used to coerce cooperation from parents who have been unable to cooperate or amicably settle disputes about their children.” (Minn. 4 In addition to its findings on the factors, the district court found that “[respondent] actually avoided service of [this] action and even forfeited parenting time to evade process[,]” “failed to follow the Court’s directives as to communications with [ap
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
Hansen v. Todnem 908 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2018
The court of appeals first established a common-law distinction between "significant" modifications and "insignificant changes or clarifications" in Chapman v. Chapman , , 441 (Minn. App. 1984).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Peterson n/k/a Jennifer Ann Hirschey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1(b)(9) ( 2016).2 This court has held that joint legal custody is inappropriate “[w]here the evidence indicates that the parties lack the ability to cooperate and communicate.” ; (stating that “joint legal custody should not be used as a ‘legal baseball bat’ to coerce cooperation”).
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem 891 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may decide minor parenting time changes and adjustments using its discretion and need not support its decision with specific findings, while significant changes “must be supported by findings that the modifications are in the best interest of the children.” d 437, 441 (Minn. App. 1984); see also Funari, d at 753.
In re the Marriage of: Chad William Lenway v. Katherine Anne Brown (f/k/a Katherine Anne Lenway) Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Chad William Lenway v. Katherine Anne Brown (f/k/a Katherine Anne Lenway) Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Increasing father’s summer parenting time from one week to 11 weeks is more than a “mere clarification” or “insubstantial modification.” Significant modifications to a parenting-time schedule “must be supported by findings that the modifications are in the best interest of the children.” (reversing modification order reinstating father’s visitation rights for insufficient findings and remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine child’s best interests).
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(trial court’s joint custody award reversed because parents unable to communicate or cooperate in resolving basic differences regarding their children’s health care, religious training, and general upbringing); -62 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (trial court’s joint custo
Ozenna v. Parmelee 407 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ozenna v. Parmelee 407 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Edsten v. Edsten 407 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Edsten v. Edsten 407 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wenndt v. Wenndt 398 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wenndt v. Wenndt 398 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(emphasis in original); d at 676 .
Marriage of Andros v. Andros 396 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Andros v. Andros 396 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Greenlaw v. Greenlaw 396 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Greenlaw v. Greenlaw 396 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Funari v. Funari 388 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Funari v. Funari 388 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minn. Stat. § 518.175 , subd.
In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of P.L.C. 384 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1 (1984) (judicial supervision of custodial parent’s exercise of authority); (parties stipulated that father should take children to Mass).
Marriage of McClintock v. Larson 382 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of McClintock v. Larson 382 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(court applied abuse of discretion standard).
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 382 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 382 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman 382 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman 382 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-441 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 376 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 376 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Berthiaume v. Berthiaume 368 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Berthiaume v. Berthiaume 368 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kathleen contends that the trial court’s award of joint custody was an abuse of discretion since the parties cannot cooperate.
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 365 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 365 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Mathias v. Mathias 365 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Lundell 361 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Lundell 361 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Andersen v. Andersen 360 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Bjorke v. Bjorke 354 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Bjorke v. Bjorke 354 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1984