Crosby v. Crosby
1998 WL 865142, 1998 Minn. App. LEXIS 1338, 587 N.W.2d 292 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may award a parent extensive, near-equal physical custody of a child even when the parents' inability to cooperate and communicate makes an award of joint legal custody inappropriate.
Facts:
- Dawn Crosby and Douglas Crosby, a married couple with two children, experienced significant conflict and had difficulty communicating and resolving disputes regarding the rearing of their children.
- A court-appointed guardian ad litem observed the parties' inability to cooperate and concluded that joint legal custody was not possible.
- Despite recommending against joint legal custody, the guardian ad litem testified that Douglas Crosby was a good parent and that the children should spend substantial time with each parent.
- For a year prior to the final judgment, the parties operated under a temporary order that divided physical care of the children on a nearly equal basis, and they did not experience significant difficulties adhering to this schedule.
- The trial court found both parties were capable and loving parents, but that Douglas Crosby had a disposition better suited to encourage and permit the children's contact with the other parent.
- Dawn Crosby received a lifelong annuity from a childhood injury, and during the marriage, she regularly commingled these non-marital funds with marital funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Crosby requested an order for protection against Douglas Crosby, which was consolidated with Douglas Crosby's request to initiate divorce proceedings in a Minnesota trial court.
- The trial court issued a temporary order that provided for a nearly equal division of physical custody of the children during the pendency of the divorce.
- Following a trial, the court issued a final judgment dissolving the marriage, awarding sole legal custody to Dawn Crosby (appellant) and extensive visitation to Douglas Crosby (respondent) that amounted to nearly one-half of the physical care.
- The trial court also classified and divided marital and non-marital property, and ruled on issues of domestic abuse, maintenance, and attorney fees.
- Dawn Crosby, the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding a parent nearly one-half of the physical care of the children, even when the court finds that the parents' inability to cooperate and communicate makes joint legal custody inappropriate?
Opinions:
Majority - Crippen, Judge
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding extensive physical custody to a parent even when joint legal custody is deemed inappropriate. The court reasoned that the criteria for evaluating joint legal custody, which involves cooperation on major life decisions, are distinct from those for joint physical custody. The ability to adhere to a structured schedule for physical care does not require the same level of harmonious communication as joint decision-making. The court noted that the parties had successfully managed a nearly equal physical custody schedule for a year, supporting the trial court's finding that they could continue to do so. Furthermore, the record supported the trial court's findings that both individuals were good parents and that it was in the children's best interest to have substantial time with each.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between the standards for awarding joint legal custody and joint physical custody in family law. It establishes that a high level of parental conflict, sufficient to preclude joint legal custody, does not automatically bar a court from ordering a near-equal physical custody arrangement. This precedent provides trial courts with greater flexibility to maximize a child's time with both parents in high-conflict divorces, focusing on the parents' ability to follow a structured schedule rather than their ability to cooperate on broader parenting decisions.
