Minnesota House Bill HF2937

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/25
• Refer: 4/1/25

Caption

Use of parenting consultants in family court cases regulated.

Summary

HF2937 regulates the use of parenting consultants in Minnesota family court cases. The bill defines a parenting consultant as a neutral third party hired by the parties to help resolve parenting time disputes and other parenting conflicts arising from custody and parenting time orders. It clarifies that a parenting consultant’s role is limited to assisting the parties in implementing existing court orders and that the consultant may not modify custody orders or alter the percentage of parenting time awarded to either parent. The bill also adds a new rule that a parenting consultant’s decisions are not binding on the parties, are not binding on the court, and may not be used as evidence in proceedings under chapter 518. It further states that any evidence, evaluations, or recommendations made by a parenting consultant are inadmissible in court. The bill preserves the ability of parties to voluntarily use a neutral third party to resolve disputes outside the court process.

Impact

The bill amends Minnesota Statutes section 518.1751 governing parenting consultants in custody and parenting time matters. It tightens the statutory limits on consultant authority by making clear that consultants cannot change custody or parenting-time allocations and by excluding their decisions and related materials from court consideration. The practical effect is to reduce the legal weight of parenting consultant determinations in family law cases and to reinforce that final authority remains with the court and the underlying custody order.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at clarifying and limiting the role of parenting consultants rather than creating a new dispute-resolution system, which suggests a procedural and child-focused intent. The overall tone of the bill is regulatory and protective of court authority.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the extent of authority given to parenting consultants in family court. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s limits on consultant power, especially the prohibition on binding decisions and inadmissible recommendations, as a safeguard against delegating judicial authority and to protect parents from overreach. Potential critics could argue that excluding consultant determinations from evidence may reduce flexibility, undermine a tool some families use to resolve disputes efficiently, or make it harder for courts to consider useful information about parenting conflicts.