Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tompach v. Tompach

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 22, 2013

Kristina Hacker Tompach, petitioner, Appellant,
v.
Paul Christopher Tompach, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27FA096820

Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Eric J. Braaten, Gena A. Braaten, Braaten & Braaten, P.A., Chaska, Minnesota (for appellant)

Joani C. Moberg, Henschel Moberg, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Stauber, Judge; and Toussaint, Judge. [*]

STAUBER, Judge

On appeal from the district court's denial of appellant-mother's motion to relocate with the parties' children to Wisconsin, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to relocate because it failed to consider the best-interest factors set forth in the relocation statute. Because the district court failed to consider the best-interest factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.175 (2012), which is required upon a motion to relocate, we reverse and remand for consideration of the best-interest factors.

FACTS

The marriage between appellant Kristina Hacker Tompach and respondent Paul Christopher Tompach was dissolved in February 2011. The parties had two children during the marriage, a daughter born June 23, 2003, and a son born February 1, 2007. The parties had earlier stipulated to a parenting plan, under which the parties would share joint-legal custody, with appellant granted primary residence and respondent granted reasonable parenting time. The parenting plan was incorporated into the subsequent judgment and decree, and further provides that "[n]either party shall move the residence of the minor children of the parties from Minnesota except upon order of the court or with the consent of the other party."

Also at the time of the dissolution, appellant requested that she be allowed to relocate to Madison, Wisconsin, with the children. Appellant claimed that the primary reason for the relocation was to be near her extended family, that the cost-of-living was more affordable in Madison, and that she could find good employment there. At trial, appellant also testified about a possible romance in Madison and that relocation there would facilitate that relationship.

The district court found that "it is not in the children's best interests to grant [appellant's] request to relocate the children's residence to Wisconsin." The court found that (1) a move to Wisconsin will hinder the children's relationship with respondent; (2) the children would be impacted emotionally and developmentally by a move away from their father; and (3) appellant was unable to demonstrate that her financial circumstances would be better in Wisconsin or that she would be able to find employment that would benefit the family. The court found that although appellant has familial support in Wisconsin, "[i]t is more important for the children to remain in Minnesota and maintain a greater relationship with [respondent]." Thus, in the order dissolving the marriage, the district court denied appellant's motion to relocate the children to Wisconsin. That decision was not appealed.

After the parties' marriage was dissolved, appellant became engaged and was scheduled to be married in July 2012. In light of the pending marriage, appellant submitted to the parties' parenting consultant her request to modify the parties' parenting time schedule on the basis of her intent to move to Madison. The parenting consultant denied the request, and appellant subsequently moved the district court for an order reversing or modifying the parenting consultant's decision.

The district court found that "[w]hile her motion does not expressly state it, [appellant] is seeking Court permission to move the children's primary residence to Madison." But the court found that the "only thing that has changed since [appellant] lost this request following trial is that she has become engaged to a man who lives in Madison. This is not enough." Thus, the district court denied appellant's motion because "[t]here is no substantial change in circumstances from those present at the time of the February 2011 decree to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.