Bill
HF 824
The bill creates a default presumption that a child should stay in the same educational setting as the previous year, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence.
Purpose and intent
- HF 824 seeks to ensure that, in child custody proceedings, the court explicitly considers the minor child’s educational setting. It establishes a default presumption favoring the child remaining in the educational setting in which they were enrolled during the immediately preceding school year, with a standard rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence that the setting is not in the child’s best interest.
- The bill addresses both temporary custody orders and custody orders issued when both parents share joint legal custody and disagree about the child’s educational setting.
Key provisions
1) New definition: Educational setting (Section 1)
- Adds a broad, inclusive definition of “educational setting” to include:
- Public school
- Charter school (established under chapter 256E)
- Charter school or innovation zone school (under chapter 256F)
- Accredited nonpublic school
- Private instruction per chapter 299A
- Any other method that satisfies compulsory education requirements of chapter 299
- The definition applies regardless of district or geographic location.
2) Temporary custody orders (Section 2)
- Adds a new paragraph (598.10, subd. 1, para. c):
- If parents disagree about the minor child’s educational setting, the court must consider the child’s educational setting when issuing a temporary custody order.
- Creates a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the educational setting the child was enrolled in during the immediately preceding school year.
- The presumption can be rebutted only by a preponderance of the evidence showing the chosen setting is not in the child’s best interest.
3) Joint custody orders (Section 3)
- Adds new subsections (598.41, subd. 4A):
- If joint legal custody is awarded and the parents disagree about the educational setting, the court must consider and include a provision in the custody order addressing the child’s educational setting.
- Establishes the same presumption as above: it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the prior year’s educational setting, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence that the setting is not in the child’s best interest.
Procedural status and timeline
- Introduced: March 6, 2025 (H.F. 824)
- Placed on calendar: March 6, 2025
- April 3, 2025: Placed on calendar under unfinished business
- May 15, 2025: Referred to Judiciary (status: rereferred to Judiciary)
Who is affected
- Minor children whose custody is in dispute and whose parents diverge on educational settings
- Parents and guardians with joint legal custody
- Courts handling temporary custody and permanent custody determinations
- Educational providers (public, charter, nonpublic) and home-based education arrangements recognized under Minnesota law
Notes
- The bill uses “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard to rebut the presumption.
- No explicit effective date is provided in the introduced text; applicability would depend on enactment and effective date if passed.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
