In re the Marriage of Michelle Marie Dillavou and Joseph Alex Sirois

Shakopee, Minnesota family law lawyers represented the parties in a child visitation dispute.

Appellant-mother Michelle Marie Dillavou and respondent-father Joseph Alex Abel Sirois were married in December 2007. They had one minor child born in December 2015, while they were living in Colorado. The child has special needs and certain medical conditions that require intensive care.



In 2021, the parties divorced in Colorado and entered into a "permanent parenting plan" (PPP) to establish the parties' parental responsibilities for the child and a parentingtime schedule. In the PPP, the parties agreed to "make all major decisions regarding the child jointly" and that "day-to-day decisions for the child shall be made by the parent with whom he is staying." The parties also agreed in the PPP to relocate to Minnesota, specifically northern Scott County, even though father's job was in Colorado. The PPP specified "that the child's school shall be in a location no further than 25 minutes from Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport." The PPP further provided that "after the parties move to either Shakopee, Savage or Prior Lake, Minnesota, the parties agree . . . not to move the child's residence on a permanent basis more than fifteen (15) miles from the areas noted herein" without consent of the other parent or court order.



* * *



When a district court is considering a motion to modify parenting time, rather than establishing a parenting-time schedule in the first instance, the court is not required to make "detailed, specific findings" on each of the best-interests factors enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 518.17 (2022). See Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 597-99 (Minn. 2018). Instead, the district court must "consider only the relevant best-interests factors" and "make sufficient findings to enable appellate review." Id. at 597 &n.2.



* * *



FAMILY LAW. PARENTING TIME MODIFICATION. The court considered whether a mother's motion to modify parenting time should be construed as a request to modify physical custody, and whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the modification based on best interest factors under Minnesota Statutes.



FAMILY LAW. CUSTODY MODIFICATION. The case addressed whether a motion to change parenting time amounted to a request to modify physical custody, requiring a different analysis under Minn. Stat. § 518.18, where the mother argued that the father's parenting time was not fulfilled as agreed and that changes were in the child's best interests.



FAMILY LAW. BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. The court evaluated if the district court made sufficient findings on the best interests of the child in determining that reducing the father's parenting time was not in the child's best interests, noting the need for stability and the value of maximizing time with both parents.



Key Phrases Modification of parenting time. Permanent parenting plan. Best-interests findings. Motion to modify custody. Special needs and certain medical conditions.

Affirmed