Minnesota courts decide child custody by applying the best interest factors set out in Minnesota Statutes § 518.17. The current statute lists 12 factors, not 13. The older version of the law used a 13-factor list, and that number still shows up in search results, older court documents, and attorney websites, which is why people search for the “13 best interest factors for child custody in Minnesota.” The legislature revised the statute, consolidated and reframed several of the older factors, and added new considerations. A judge today must weigh all 12 of the current factors, no single one controls, and the final order must contain written findings explaining how each factor influenced the ruling.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
Why the List Changed From 13 Factors to 12
Before § 518.17 was updated, the statute contained 13 numbered factors with slightly different language. The revision merged some overlapping items, rewrote others, and added a factor that pushes the court toward maximizing each parent’s time with the child. If you are preparing for a custody case in Minnesota now, the 12 factors below are the ones the judge will actually apply, regardless of what older materials say.
The Best Interests Standard
Every custody decision runs through one legal test: what arrangement serves the best interests of the child. The statute directs the court to consider “all relevant factors,” with the 12 listed factors serving as the required framework. A judge cannot pick one factor and ignore the rest, and the written order must include detailed findings on each factor and explain how those findings led to the custody arrangement.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
The statute also creates a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests when either parent requests it. Joint legal custody means both parents share decision-making authority over major issues like education, healthcare, and religious upbringing. That presumption flips when domestic abuse has occurred between the parents. In abuse cases, the law presumes joint legal or joint physical custody is not in the child’s best interests, and the court examines the nature of the abuse and its implications for the child’s safety before deciding whether the presumption has been overcome.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
The 12 Best Interest Factors
Each of the 12 factors below must be addressed on the record. They are listed here in plain language with a short note on what each one means in practice.
1. The Child’s Needs and How Each Arrangement Affects Them
The court looks at physical, emotional, cultural, spiritual, and other needs. A child who attends a particular school, practices a specific faith, or has strong ties to a cultural community benefits from arrangements that preserve those connections.
2. Special Medical, Educational, or Developmental Needs
If a child has a disability, a mental health diagnosis, or an individualized education program, the court considers which parent is better equipped to coordinate that care and whether the proposed living arrangement keeps the child close to necessary services.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
3. The Child’s Preference
If the judge believes the child is mature enough to express an independent and reliable opinion, that preference gets weight. Minnesota does not set a specific age at which a child can choose. The court or a professional interviews the child to assess whether the preference is genuinely the child’s own rather than coached or pressured by a parent.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
4. Domestic Abuse History
The court examines whether domestic abuse has occurred in either parent’s household or relationship, the context and severity of that abuse, and how it affects the child’s safety and developmental needs. This factor carries significant practical weight because it also triggers the presumption against joint custody described above.
5. A Parent’s Physical, Mental, or Chemical Health
A health issue only matters under this factor if it affects the child’s safety or developmental needs. A parent managing a chronic illness does not automatically lose ground. Untreated substance abuse or a mental health condition that impairs the parent’s ability to provide safe, consistent care, on the other hand, can lead to restricted or supervised parenting time.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
6. Each Parent’s Caregiving History
This is where the court looks at who actually did the day-to-day work before the case was filed. Feeding, bathing, transporting to school, attending medical appointments, helping with homework. Past patterns of hands-on involvement are one of the strongest predictors judges use in evaluating who should carry primary responsibility going forward.
7. Willingness and Ability to Provide Ongoing Care
A parent’s track record matters, but so does demonstrated capacity going forward. The court evaluates whether each parent can meet the child’s evolving emotional, spiritual, and cultural needs and whether they will follow through consistently with the parenting schedule.
8. Effect of Changes to Home, School, and Community
Stability is a statutory factor, not just a preference. A custody arrangement that keeps the child in the same school district, near the same friends, and in a familiar neighborhood scores well here. Judges are reluctant to uproot a child from an environment where they are thriving unless the benefits of a change clearly outweigh the disruption.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
9. Ongoing Relationships With Parents, Siblings, and Other Important People
The court considers how the proposed arrangement affects the child’s bonds with each parent, brothers and sisters, grandparents, and other significant people. Arrangements that sever or weaken these relationships face scrutiny.
10. Maximizing Parenting Time With Both Parents
This factor pushes the court toward arrangements that give the child meaningful time with each parent. The flip side is also explicit in the statute: the court must consider the harm caused by limiting parenting time with either parent. This factor does not guarantee equal time, but a judge needs a solid reason to award one parent significantly more time than the other.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
11. Willingness to Support the Child’s Relationship With the Other Parent
Judges watch closely for gatekeeping behavior. A parent who badmouths the other parent, blocks phone calls, or sabotages the child’s time with the other parent will lose credibility under this factor. One exception applies: this factor does not apply when domestic abuse has occurred, because requiring a victim to facilitate contact with their abuser would be harmful.
12. Ability to Cooperate in Raising the Child
The court assesses whether the parents can share information, make joint decisions about major life issues, and resolve disagreements without dragging the child into conflict. Parents who communicate well and use dispute resolution tools earn favorable findings here.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.17 – Custody and Support of Children on Judgment
How the Court Gathers Information on Each Factor
Custody Evaluators
In contested cases, the court can order a formal investigation under Minnesota Statutes § 518.167. A custody evaluator, typically a social worker or psychologist, interviews both parents and the child, visits each home, reviews documents, and consults with teachers, therapists, and other professionals who know the family. The evaluator’s written report must address every one of the 12 factors, provide a detailed analysis of the evidence considered for each, and state a recommendation with reasons.2Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.167 – Investigations and Reports
Guardians ad Litem
A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) serves a different role. The GAL is appointed to represent the child’s best interests, not the wishes of either parent. A GAL conducts an independent investigation, meets with the child at home, interviews parents and caregivers, and files written reports with conclusions and recommendations. A GAL and a custody evaluator are separate roles under Minnesota law, and the same person cannot serve as both in the same case.3Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Court Rules – General Rules of Practice Rule 903
Parenting Plans
The court may require each parent to submit a proposed parenting plan before the final order is entered. Under Minnesota Statutes § 518.1705, a parenting plan must include a time-sharing schedule, a designation of who makes which decisions about the child, and a method for resolving future disputes between the parents. Plans can also address other issues the parents agree on, such as holiday schedules or how to handle extracurricular activities.4Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.1705 – Parenting Plans
Proving How the Factors Apply to Your Family
The factors matter only to the extent you can prove how they apply. Judges decide based on evidence, not assertions.
School records, report cards, and teacher communications show which parent stays involved in education. Medical records and appointment histories demonstrate who manages the child’s healthcare. If your child has special needs, documentation of therapy sessions, IEP meetings, and specialist visits matters under Factor 2.
Communication logs between parents carry significant weight under Factors 11 and 12. Tools like OurFamilyWizard create timestamped, uneditable records of co-parenting communication. Judges notice when one parent communicates respectfully and the other responds with hostility or silence. A daily journal documenting who handles meals, bedtime, homework, and transportation builds the caregiving history that supports Factor 6.
Digital evidence like text messages, emails, and social media posts can be powerful, but courts require authentication. Screenshots cropped out of context, missing timestamps, or showing signs of editing are likely to be excluded. Preserve full message threads in their original form with metadata intact. Evidence obtained by hacking into the other parent’s phone or accounts will also be thrown out and could damage your credibility.
Third-party witnesses fill gaps that documents cannot. Teachers, coaches, pediatricians, and therapists can speak to your involvement in the child’s life and your ability to meet their needs. These individuals can submit written statements or testify at the hearing. The Affidavit in Support of Establishing Custody and Parenting Time (Form CHC105) is the standard supporting declaration and is available through the Minnesota Judicial Branch.5Minnesota Judicial Branch. Child Custody and Parenting Time – Forms
The Factors and Existing Custody Orders
If a custody order is already in place, the 12 factors alone are not enough to reopen it. Minnesota Statutes § 518.18 imposes a one-year waiting period after the original order before either parent can file a modification motion, unless both parties agree in writing to waive it, and a two-year wait after a losing modification motion. The parent asking for a change generally has to show that circumstances have materially changed since the last order and that the modification serves the child’s best interests. Changing the child’s primary residence faces an even higher bar, satisfied only in narrow situations such as agreement of the parents, integration into the other parent’s household with consent, or danger to the child in the current environment.6Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 518.18 – Modification of Order