Rule 310.Alternative Dispute Resolution
Last amended January 1, 2023 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 310
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment
This rule expressly provides for use of ADR in post-decree matters. This is appropriate because such matters constitute a significant portion of the litigation in family law and because these matters are often quite susceptible to successful resolution in ADR.
The committee believes the existing mechanism requiring the parties to confer before filing any motion other than a motion for temporary relief provides a suitable mechanism for considering ADR and Rule 303.03(c) is amended to remind the parties of this obligation.
Advisory Committee Comments – 2022 Amendments
Rule 310 is amended to collect and update the provisions in these rules relating to court-annexed ADR for use in family law matters. These rules are consistent with the provisions of Rule 114, which contains more general provisions that apply in family law matters as well as other civil cases.
Rule 310.03(c) is a new rule that provides explicitly for parenting time expeditors and parenting consultants and defines their respective roles. Subdivision 3 of the rule requires that any change in parenting time or schedules must be filed by the Neutral with the court. This information is required by the court to modify child support requirements based on any change in parenting time as a result of the parenting time expediting process or the agreement of the parties working with a parenting consultant. This rule change, applicable to final resolution of parenting time adjustments, is intended to remove any confusion over the statute that protects the confidentiality of a Parenting Time Expeditor’s notes and records. See Minn. Stat. § 518.1751, subd. 4a. The change in parenting time is expressly made the basis for changing child support obligations, and must therefore be made part of the court’s record by filing. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.35, .36. The rule does not authorize filing other documents.
Rules 310.04 – 310.09 (Deleted effective July 1, 1997.)
Amendment History
- (Amended effective January 1, 2023.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 1997.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 310 makes alternative dispute resolution the default path for family law matters, tying into the broader ADR framework in Rule 114. Most cases have to attempt it before trial. The rule carves out a handful of exceptions: domestic abuse act proceedings, contempt actions, support and parentage matters where a public agency is a party or providing services, and anything already assigned to a special master under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Post-decree relief generally can go to ADR under Rule 114 too, and the parties are expected to discuss using it at the settlement conference Rule 303.03(c) requires before a motion is heard.
Domestic abuse gets special handling even outside that formal exception. A court can't require a facilitative process — the kind that puts both parties in the same room — where one party claims to be a victim of abuse, or where the court finds probable cause that a party or child has been physically abused or threatened. The court can still direct the parties toward an ADR process if it's satisfied they're represented by counsel and have agreed to a process under Rule 114 that skips the face-to-face meeting.
Family court draws on a wider menu of ADR tools than a typical civil case: early neutral evaluation split into financial and social tracks, moderated settlement conferences, and parenting time expediting or consulting for disputes that come up after the decree. A neutral who ran a confidential ADR process generally can't turn around and conduct a custody evaluation in the same case. And a court won't force parties back into ADR on an issue where they already tried it under Rule 114 and hit an impasse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which family court cases are exempt from the ADR requirement?
Domestic abuse act proceedings, contempt actions, support and parentage matters where a public agency is a party or providing services, and cases already before a special master under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Can a court order mediation when there's a domestic abuse allegation?
Not a face-to-face process. A court cannot require a facilitative process where a party claims to be an abuse victim or the court finds probable cause of physical abuse or a threat of it, though it can direct a non-face-to-face ADR process if the parties are represented and agree.
What kinds of alternative dispute resolution does family court use?
Early neutral evaluation covering financial or custody and parenting-time issues, moderated settlement conferences, and parenting time expediting or consulting for disputes that arise after the decree.
Can the same neutral who mediated a case later evaluate custody?
Generally no. A neutral who served in a confidential ADR process is barred from also conducting the custody investigation or evaluation in that case, absent narrow conditions the rule allows.
Does a party have to try ADR again after reaching an impasse?
No. A court will not require parties to attempt ADR on an issue they already took through a Rule 114 process and reached an impasse on.
Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment
This rule is changed from a limited rule dealing only with mediation to the main family law rule governing use of ADR. All of the provisions of the existing rule are deleted because their subject matter is now governed by either the amended rule or Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114. The committee believes that there are significant and compelling reasons to have all court-annexed ADR governed by a single rule. This will streamline the process and make it more cost-effective for litigants, and will also make the process easier to understand for ADR providers and neutrals, many of whom are not lawyers.
The rule is not intended to discourage settlement efforts in any action. In cases where any party has been, or claims to have been, a victim of domestic violence, however, courts need to be especially cautious. Facilitative processes, particularly mediation, are especially prone to abuse since they place the parties in direct contact and may encourage them to compromise their rights in situations where their independent decision-making capacity is limited. The rule accordingly prohibits their use where those concerns are present.