District court abused its discretion by awarding sole legal and sole physical custody of minor child (A.L.R) to grandparents. BY: Kiley C.

In Re the Custody of A. L. R., No. 65-FA-11-112, 2013 MN A12-1602 (Minn. Ct. App. April 8, 2013)

Title: Mother was 17 years old and father was 15 years old when the child was born; they have never been married. Mother began living with the father and his parents (grandparents), while she was pregnant with the child in 2009. Mother continued to live with grandparents with the child and the father until September 2011, when an altercation occurred between the mother and the grandmother. As a result of the altercation the mother and child moved out of their home and the grandparents filed a petition for custody of the child. It went to trial.

District court found that it is in the child's best interests for the grandparents to receive sole physical and sole legal custody of the minor child. They found the grandparents had established by clear and convincing evidence that they are interested third and that they established by clear and convincing evidence that extraordinary circumstances existed. The child was removed from mother's care and placed in grandparents' care.

Mother moved for amended findings or a new trial. District court denied the motion so she appealed.

Did district court err by determining that grandparents established by clear and convincing evidence that they are interested third parties under Minn. Stat. § 257C.03, subd. 7(a), because extraordinary circumstances exist?

The mother says there are no extraordinary circumstances present; that the grandparents never alleged or proved that she abandoned or neglected the child or subjected her to any physical or emotional harm. She contends that the district court erred by determining that grandparents had established they are interested third parties and that they failed to consider whether extraordinary circumstances triumphed over Minnesota’s presumption in favor of parental custody. Minnesota courts traditionally find that the child's parent is entitled to custody, but they have also found that there are circumstances when the court may take control of a fit parent's right to custody and control of that child.

The court of Appeals reviewed the district court's findings and they did not find anything that would constitute extraordinary circumstances that would affect mother's ability to parent the child. They ruled that the district court’s decision be reversed and remanded because their records lack clear and convincing evidence to support their finding of the existence of extraordinary circumstances and its ability to prove that the grandparents are interested third parties. Ultimately deciding that the district court abused its discretion by awarding sole legal and sole physical custody of the child to grandparents and gave custody  back to the mother.