WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 3840

Custody and parenting time presumptions modified.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tom Dippel and 1 co-sponsor

Presumes joint legal and physical custody with detailed, factor-based best interests findings and a 50% minimum parenting time, barring abuse protections.

Author added Gordon
#children-custodyandsupport #courts #family
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 3840

Summary of HF 3840 (Minnesota, 2025-2026): Custody and Parenting Time Presumptions Modified

  • Bill number and session: HF 3840, 94th Legislature (2025-2026)
  • Jurisdiction: Minnesota
  • Introduced: February 27, 2026; Publicly posted March 12, 2026
  • Sponsors: Primary author (no party listed in excerpt); Co-sponsors Tom Dippel and Jimmy Gordon

Purpose and overall intent

HF 3840 proposes changes to Minnesota’s custody and parenting time framework, with a focus on:
- Establishing presumptions regarding joint custody arrangements (both legal and physical) and the conditions under which such presumptions apply.
- Strengthening explicit, detailed findings required by the court when evaluating the best interests of the child.
- Modifying minimum parenting time presumptions to ensure substantial time with both parents, while allowing for safeguards in cases involving domestic abuse or safety concerns.
- Reframing certain factors and guidance used by courts to determine custody and parenting time, including how to treat parental behavior, disability, and cooperation in child-rearing.

Two sections are amended:
- Section 518.17 (Best interests of the child)
- Section 518.175 (Parenting time)

Effective dates: Provisions largely take effect August 1, 2026, with applicability to proceedings beginning on or after that date.

Key provisions and changes

1) Best interests of the child — detailed factor analysis (Sec. 1; 518.17)

  • The court must consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including:

    • Child’s holistic needs (physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, etc.)
    • Special medical/educational/mental health needs requiring specific parenting arrangements
    • Child’s reasonable preferences if the child is of sufficient age and maturity
    • Domestic abuse within the family context and its implications for safety and development
    • Any health issues of a parent affecting the child
    • History and nature of each parent’s caregiving
    • Willingness and ability of each parent to provide ongoing care and consistency
    • Effects of changes in home, school, and community
    • Effect of proposed arrangements on ongoing relationships (with each parent, siblings, etc.)
    • Benefit to the child of maximizing parenting time with both parents
    • Willingness and ability of parents to cooperate, share information, minimize conflict, and resolve major decisions

  • Structural changes to the articulation of factors:

    • Clear, detailed findings are required for each factor; the court must explain how each factor leads to conclusions about custody and parenting time (no factor may be used in isolation, and factors may interrelate).
    • The court must promote healthy development through safe, stable, nurturing relationships with both parents and must not prefer a parent solely due to gender.
    • Each parent is presumed capable of nurturing the child unless substantial reasons show otherwise; recognizes diverse parental approaches across cultures.
    • Conduct of a party not impacting the child’s relationship should not be considered.
    • Disability of a custodian or child should not be determinative of custody.
    • Violation of 609.507 (crimes related to violence or abuse) may be considered as relevant to parenting decisions.

  • Notable deletions/insertions:

    • Removed explicit prior reference to a rigid, gender-based or strict “joint physical custody” presumption language.
    • Added explicit presumption: joint legal and joint physical custody is presumed to be in the child’s best interests upon request, with a rebuttable exception if domestic abuse has occurred (considering its nature and context and implications for safety and needs).

  • Joint custody presumption:

    • There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of joint legal and joint physical custody upon request (absent domestic abuse).
    • If domestic abuse has occurred, the presumption can be rebutted; the court considers the abuse’s nature, context, and potential impact on safety and development.

  • Additional clarifications:

    • Joint custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time.
    • Disagreement between parents over custody alone is not, by itself, evidence of an inability to cooperate in parenting, per the cooperation clause.

  • Effective date: August 1, 2026 (applies to proceedings beginning on or after that date).

2) Parenting time framework (Sec. 2; 518.175)

  • General principle:

    • In dissolution or legal separation proceedings (post-commencement and during minority), a court shall grant parenting time to preserve a child-parent relationship if it serves the child’s best interests. The court may reserve a decision on future expansion or establishment of parenting time, with subsequent motions guided by the best interests standard.

  • Restrictions and safety:

    • If evidence shows parenting time would endanger the child’s health or development, the court may restrict or deny parenting time (time, place, duration, supervision), considering the child’s age and prior relationship with the parent.

  • Financial considerations:

    • A parent’s failure to pay support due to inability to pay is not, by itself, a reason to deny parenting time.

  • Enforcement and scheduling:

    • The court may order enforcement assistance (e.g., law enforcement accompaniment) for parenting time.
    • An order should, to the extent practicable, specify a regular parenting time schedule, including holidays and school breaks, unless restricted.

  • Pro se proceedings:

    • The judiciary must provide a pro se motion form for parenting time disputes, including guidance on filing and serving; the form cannot request a change of custody.

  • Minimum parenting time presumptions:

    • A rebuttable presumption that a child must receive at least 50% of parenting time with each parent (measured by overnights or an alternate method if non-overnights are substantial).
    • The court may consider the child’s age when determining what constitutes “significant time” with a parent.

  • Effective date: August 1, 2026 (applies to proceedings beginning on or after that date).

Who and what is affected

  • Affects custody decisions in divorce or legal separation proceedings, and parenting time determinations for minors in Minnesota.
  • Courts: Requires more explicit, factor-based findings with reasoning for each factor in custody decisions.
  • Parents: Establishes a strong presumption in favor of joint custody arrangements (absent domestic abuse), potentially increasing time with both parents.
  • Children: Aims to promote stable, nurturing relationships with both parents, while prioritizing safety in cases of abuse.
  • Domestic abuse considerations: Retains a safety-focused exception to the joint custody presumption.

Procedural and timeline notes

  • Effective date: August 1, 2026.
  • Applies to proceedings beginning on or after August 1, 2026.
  • Sec. 2 adds a binding 50% (minimum) parenting time presumption and requires explicit schedules, enforcement options, and a pro se filing mechanism.
  • Judges must provide detailed, factor-specific findings and explanations in custody determinations.
  • The bill emphasizes cooperation and non-disparagement of parental judgment in the absence of abuse.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with current Minnesota law to highlight the exact shifts HF 3840 introduces.

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

Sign in to ask a question.