## Facts

- Carole Mary Kennedy (later Lindstrom) and Duane Allen Kennedy married in 1970 and had four children (born 1972, 1978, 1980, and 1984).
- Duane practiced law and worked in Rochester, Minnesota; during the last five years of the marriage the family lived in a rural home near Grand Meadow, Minnesota.
- Carole had a college degree, worked outside the home earlier in the marriage, and later did intermittent work (typing at home and temporary secretarial work).
- In the dissolution judgment (Nov. 1984), the trial court placed the three older children in the father’s sole custody and placed the youngest child in the mother’s temporary custody pending further study and hearing.
- On an earlier appeal, the custody determination was remanded for a finding identifying the primary caretaker as of January 1984 (when the custody proceeding commenced), consistent with the then-recent primary-caretaker analysis.
- On remand, the trial court heard further evidence and found that, as to the three older children, caregiving had been shared to the extent that neither parent was the primary caretaker; it found the mother was the primary caretaker of the youngest child.
- The trial court placed physical custody of the three older children with the father in the Grand Meadow home; the youngest child remained with the mother, who lived with her father in Ashland, Wisconsin.
- The mother appealed the post-remand judgment, disputing the “no primary caretaker” finding for the older children, the physical-custody placement with the father, and aspects of legal custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that neither parent was the primary caretaker of the three older children as of January 1984.
2. Whether the placement of physical custody of the three older children with the father was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion under the statutory best-interests factors.
3. Whether the legal-custody provisions (sole legal custody in the father for the three older children and a temporary custody designation for the youngest child) were proper.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that neither parent was the primary caretaker of the three older children.
- The court affirmed the award of physical custody of the three older children to the father.
- The court modified the judgment to provide for joint legal custody of all four children.
- The court modified the judgment to make final (not temporary) the placement of custody of the youngest child with the mother.

## Legal Principles

- In an initial custody dispute, if the evidence shows that day-to-day caregiving was substantially shared, a court may find that no primary caretaker exists rather than forcing a designation.
- When no primary caretaker is identified, the custody determination turns on the child’s best interests under Minn. Stat. § 518.17, without a presumptive preference tied to primary-caretaker status.
- Custody findings are reviewed with deference; an appellate court will not reverse absent clear error in fact-finding or an abuse of discretion in applying best-interests factors.
- Physical custody (residential placement) and legal custody (major decision-making authority) are separable; joint legal custody may be appropriate even when physical custody is divided.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s determination that neither parent was the primary caretaker of the three older children and affirmed awarding their physical custody to the father based on best interests, while modifying the judgment to require joint legal custody for all children and to make the youngest child’s placement with the mother final.


Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)