WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 4248

Courts to recognize the fundamental right to the parent-child relationship in child custody and parenting time determinations requirement

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Drazkowski and 1 co-sponsor

Minnesota courts would treat the parent-child relationship as a fundamental right in custody and parenting-time cases, guiding decisions to protect this relationship.

Author added Gruenhagen
#childrenandfamiliesandchildren #youthandfamiliesdepartment #legalproceedings
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 4248

Summary of Bill SF 4248 (Minnesota) – 2025-2026 Session

Title

Courts to recognize the fundamental right to the parent-child relationship in child custody and parenting time determinations requirement

Purpose and intent

SF 4248 would require Minnesota courts to recognize the parent-child relationship as a fundamental right when making determinations about child custody and parenting time. The bill aims to ensure that courts consider the right of parents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children as a constitutional or fundamental interest, potentially influencing how custody, visitation, and parenting-time decisions are evaluated and decided.

Key provisions and changes (highlights)

  • Recognition of the parent-child relationship as a fundamental right within the context of child custody and parenting time proceedings.
  • Courts would be obligated to apply heightened scrutiny or balancing standards consistent with protecting fundamental rights when issuing custody or parenting-time orders.
  • The bill would influence how judicial decisions are weighed when determining:
    • Custody arrangements (legal and physical custody)
    • Parenting time/visitation schedules
    • Modifications of existing orders
    • Potentially, enforcement mechanisms for violations of custody or parenting-time orders
  • The proposal may require courts to consider whether a custody or parenting-time decision meaningfully preserves or advances the parent-child relationship, subject to the court’s standard of review for fundamental rights.

Affected parties and entities

  • Parents and legal guardians seeking custody, visitation, or parenting-time determinations
  • Children, as beneficiaries of custody/parenting-time decisions
  • Minnesota state courts (district courts and family courts) and family law practitioners
  • State agencies involved in child welfare, if relevant to custody proceedings

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Bill status: Introduced and referred to Judiciary and Public Safety (as of 2026-03-09)
  • Sponsors:
    • Primary sponsor: (not explicitly listed in the provided text)
    • Co-sponsors: Glenn Gruenhagen, Steve Drazkowski
    • The action history shows an author addition on 2026-03-23 (Gruenhagen)
  • Next steps in legislative process would typically include committee hearings, potential amendments, and votes in both chambers, followed by potential reconciliation and enactment.

Potential impact and considerations

  • If enacted, courts may place greater emphasis on preserving the parent-child relationship in custody decisions, potentially affecting factors such as parental access, relocation decisions, and modifications to existing orders.
  • Could affect the standard of review used by judges, possibly elevating the significance of maintaining ongoing parental relationships in determinations.
  • May interact with existing Minnesota family-law standards, including the best interests of the child framework; the bill could require alignment with or reinterpretation of “best interests” to ensure the fundamental right is protected.
  • Practical implications for litigants include the need to present evidence demonstrating the impact on the parent-child relationship and potential changes to how custody evaluations are conducted.

If you’d like, I can compare SF 4248 to Minnesota’s current custody standards and summarize how it would alter the interpretation of “best interests of the child” and any procedural changes likely to arise in court practice.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.