Based upon the evidence adduced, the argument of counsel, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,

THE COURT FINDS:

1. This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Petitioner's motion to compel compliance with Temporary Order, filed herein on April 22, 1996; (2) Petitioner's motion to compel discovery, filed herein on April 22, 1996; (3) Respondent's motion to be granted temporary legal and physical custody of the children and to suspend Respondent's obligation to pay child support and spousal maintenance, filed herein on April 23, 1996; and (4) Petitioner's motion for an order allowing an independent custody evaluation, filed herein on April 24, 1996.

2. This Court entered an Order for Temporary Relief on February 28, 1996. In that Order, the parties were granted temporary joint legal custody of the three minor children of the parties. Petitioner was granted the temporary physical custody of the children, subject to liberal and reasonable visitation by Respondent. The Department of Court Services was ordered to continue the custody and visitation evaluation which had already commenced.

3. Gary D. Shackelford, M.A.,Hennepin County Department of Court Services, has now completed the custody and visitation evaluation and has submitted a report dated April 15, 1996. In that report, Mr. Shackelford recommends that Respondent be granted sole legal and physical custody of the three minor children. Respondent has now moved for a change of the temporary custody of the children based upon that report; Petitioner has opposed any change of temporary custody.

4. The Court has also received a report dated May 28, 1996, from Greg Sicheneder, LICSW, a therapist with Family and Children's Service. Mr. Sicheneder has been providing counseling for the two older children, Alexander and Stefan. Mr. Sicheneder has seen the children only a few times and he does not offer an opinion regarding which parent should have custody. He reports that Stefan is functioning very well given the circumstances but that Alexander is having a few difficulties in adjusting. Probably of most significance, he reports that the two boys "would like a relationship with each parent."

5. Each of the parties has submitted extensive affidavits, both in connection with this motion and with the earlier motions for temporary relief. In the affidavits, each parent details at great length the faults and shortcomings, both real and perceived, of the other parent. If the Court were to believe but a fraction of the allegations which each parent levies against the other, it would be forced to conclude that neither parent is fit to have the care, custody and control of the minor children. Such a conclusion is belied, however, by the fmdings of Mr. Shackelford that "Ms. Jimenez Lorente and Mr. Johansson are two good parents who love their children a great deal" and that "All three children appear to have a very close bond and relationship with each parent." Given these observations by a neutral party, this Court is able to place little, if any, reliance on the affidavits of the parties. The Court is unable to determine if there has been intentional fabrication or if this is a case of exaggeration of faults. There is no doubt in the Court's mind that each parent has his or her own faults; on the other hand, there is no reliable evidence before the Court tending to disprove in any way Mr. Shackelford's findings or the finding of this Court in its Order for Temporary Relief that 'each of the parents has the capacity to love and care for their children."

6. The issue, then, is which of these "two good parents" should be entrusted with the temporary care, custody and control of the minor children pending an evidentiary hearing at which the issue of permanent custody is determined. Upon consideration of all the factors set forth in Minn. Stat. §518.17, subd. 1, this Court would now fmd that the temporary legal and physical custody of the children should be granted to Petitioner. As set forth in the report of Mr. Shackelford, analysis under most of the statutory factors results in a "draw" between the parents. There is no disagreement, however, that Petitioner has been the children's primary caretaker (Minn. Stat. §518.17, subd. 1(a)(3)), due to the fact that Respondent has had to work long hours and travel extensively in connection with his employment. It is also apparent that the oldest child, Alexander, would prefer to continue living in the United States with his mother, whereas the two younger children, Stefan and Rebecca, are either tom or have no decision. (Minn. Stat. §518.17, subd. 1(a)(2)).

7. Mr. Shackelford based his conclusion that Respondent should be granted custody of the children largely on his perception that Respondent could offer the children more stability at this time, both in terms of financial stability and the emotional stability of living close to extended family members.

8. Changes in the factual circumstances of the parties since completion of the evaluation now make the factor of financial stability less of a consideration. Respondent has now returned to work in Sweden. His net income has dropped from $5,685.00per month to $2,242.00per month. Additionally, Petitioner, who was previously not working outside the home, has now obtained full-time employment, with a net monthly income of approximately $1,560.00. Thus, the parties will now have approximately two-thirds of their former income and will have the obligation of maintaining two households. Clearly, neither party will be able to provide the standard of living which was maintained during the marriage. However, each of these parties should be able to adequately provide for the children with the guidelines-recommended amount of support from the other parent. thus, the issue of finances is lessened.

9. With regard to the issue of emotional stability, the Court recognizes the importance which Mr. Shackelford has placed on the presence of extended family members. However, the Court believes that this is a more appropriate consideration when the issue of perrnanent custody is considered. At this tiine, when the Court is considering only the issue of temporary custody, the Court believes that the emotional stability of the children is best served by allowing them to continue to live widi Petitioner. The family has lived in Minnesota for more than four years; the two older children have attended school here and undoubtedly made many friends. Alexander has expressed a clear preference to stay here. The Court believes it would be in the best interests of the children if their lives were disrupted as little as possible. Changing custody to Respondent on a temporary basis would result in a disruption now, and possibly another disruption if Petitioner were granted the permanent custody. On the other hand, allowing Petitioner to retain temporary custody would result in a disruption only if Respondent were granted the permanent custody. In this regard, the Court would emphasize the nature of the move required by a change of custody, be it temporary or permanent. This is a move not just to another part of town but to an entirely different country, and it will necessitate major changes in the children's lives. It is best for the children that these changes be encountered only when and if determination of the issue of permanent custody necessitates the move to Sweden.

10. Because Respondent is now living in Sweden, the Court finds that his right of reasonable visitation should include an extended visitation of six weeks with the children during the summer. This six weeks shall be taken between June 15 and August 15. Respondent shall notify Petitioner as soon as possible as to the dates he wishes the children to be with him. Transportation costs for the children may be taken from marital savings and then accounted for in the final property distribution. The issue of future visitation may be addressed to the judicial officer assigned to the hearing on permanent custody of the children.

11. As previously noted, Respondent has now moved back to Sweden and has taken employment there. This move was necessitated by Respondent's employer. Respondent's current net monthly income is $2,242.00. Based on this income, his child support obligation should be reduced to $785.00per month, effective May 1, 1996.

12. After receiving child support from Respondent, Petitioner will have a net monthly income of approximately $2,345. 00. Respondent will have income of $1,457. 00after paying child support. Although Respondent's exact living expenses in Sweden are not known at this tiine, it would appear that he no longer has the ability to pay temporary spousal maintenance to Petitioner; therefore, his spousal maintenance obligation is suspended as of May 1, 1996.

13. The parties are in dispute as to the amount of money owed for the period of March and April  1996. Payments made by Respondent for those two months total $783.91 less than he was required to pay for support and maintenance. However, Respondent made the March mortgage payment of $1,456.00. This Court's Order for Temporary Relief provided that Petitioner would be responsible for the mortgage payment effective March 1, 1996. Petitioner contends that Respondent's payment of the mortgage for March was a "gift"to her; Respondent contends it was because he did not have time to stop the automatic withholding to make the mortgage payment. The Court finds that Respondent had no intention to make a gift to Petitioner and that payment of the mortgage for the month of March was Petitioner's obligation. Respondent has thus, in essence, overpaid Petitioner in an amount of $672.09. This amount shall be credited to Respondent in the final property distribution.

14. The parties have agreed to cooperate in the sale of the homestead in Minnesota. They agree that marital assets may be used to avoid foreclosure.

15. Petitioner has no benefits available from her employment. It is doubtful that the medical benefits through Respondent's employment will cover Petitioner and/or the children if they are living in the United States. Therefore, the parties have agreed that Petitioner may obtain health insurance for herself and the minor children and may pay the premiums for such insurance out of marital assets.

16. Petitioner has requested that the Court allow an independent custody evaluation. The Court believes that this would be appropriate, especially given the relative "inconclusiveness" of the Court Services evaluation. The Court believes, however, that such an independent evaluation should not occur until after the children have returned from their extended visitation with their father in Sweden. The costs of any such evaluation should be shared by the parties.

17. Petitioner has filed a motion dated April 22, 1996, requesting Respondent's compliance with the Order for Temporary Relief. None of these issues was specifically addressed at the hearing on May 8, 1996. It would appear, however, that most of the requests for relief are now either moot or resolved. The Court would specifically deny the motions to have Respondent post a bond to secure child support or to issue a bench warrant for his arrest if he fails to pay child support. The Court finds that Respondent made his best efforts to pay child support timely and that there is no indication he will not continue to do so.

18. Petitioner also filed a motion on April 22, 1996, asking to compel discovery. This motion was also not specifically addressed at the hearing on May 8, 1996. However, it would appear from the affidavit of counsel for Respondent filed May 3, 1996, that all discovery requests have either been complied with or will be complied with in the very near future. Counsel for Respondeit has informed counsel for Petitioner that he has encountered some difficulties in obtaining the information necessary for discovery because Respondent has moved to Sweden. The Court is nevertheless ordering that Respondent comply with all discovery requests by July 15, 1996.

19. Petitioner has requested attomey's fees in connection with each of her motions, and in addition she has requested that Respondent be ordered to pay immediately the $2,000.00 in attomey's fees which he was ordered to pay by this Court's Order for Temporary Relief. The Court finds that there is no reason why Respondent should not pay the $2,000.00 in attomey's fees immediately. The Court further finds that there is no just cause to award additional attomey's fees to Petitioner based upon bad faith or unreasonable delay by Respondent. The Court finds that Petitioner may have a need for additional attomey's fees, especially in light of the fact that she just started employment. However, it is doubtful at this time whether Respondent has the ability to assist Petitioner with these attomey's fees. The Court will allow each of the parties to withdraw up to $2,500.00 from marital assets to pay attomey's fees.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That pending further order of the Court, Petitioner is granted the temporary sole legal and physical custody of the minor children of the parties, subject to liberal and reasonable visitation by Respondent. Visitation by Respondent shall include six consecutive weeks between June 15, 1996, and August 15, 1996. The costs of transporting the children to and from Sweden for visitation may be taken from marital assets and then taken into account in the final property distribution.

2. That effective May 1, 1996, Respondent's temporary child support obligation shall be reduced to $785.00 per month, payable by income withholding.

3. That effective May 1, 1996, Respondent's temporary spousal maintenance obligation shall be suspended.

4. That if medical insurance for Petitioner and the minor children is not available through Respondent's employment, Petitioner shall obtain such insurance and the premiums may be paid from marital assets.

5 . That Petitioner's motion for an independent custody evaluation is granted. Said evaluation shall not be commenced until the children have returned from their extended visitation in Sweden. The parties shall be equally responsible for the costs of the evaluation.

6. The parties shall cooperate in the sale of the family homestead. The parties may utilize marital assets, if necessary, to avoid a foreclosure.

7. By July 1, 1996, Respondent shall pay to Petitioner's attorney the sum of $2,000.00,as previously ordered herein on February 28, 1996.

8. Petitioner's request for additional attomey's fees is denied.

9. Each party shall be allowed, upon notification to the other party, to withdraw up to $2,500.00from marital assets to pay for attomey's fees.

10. Respondent shall reply to all outstanding discovery requests of Petitioner by July 15, 1996.

11. That except as herein specifically granted, all other motions by the parties are denied.

12. Except as provided herein, all prior Orders of the Court, including the provisions of Appendix A, remain in full force and effect.

13. That the Clerk of this Court shall mail one copy of this Order to counsel for the parties, which shall be good and proper service for all purposes.

14. That the Family Court Assignment Office shall schedule this matter for a pretrial and evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody, visitation, and property division.

Dated: June 4, 1996
THE FOREGOING FACTS WERE FOUND BY ME
AFTER DUE HEARING AND THE FOREGOING
ORDER THERE ON IS RECOMMENDED.
Referee Patrick C. Meade
Family Court Division

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER APPROVED AS OF DATE HEARD.
Judge Howard
Judge of District Court