FLCS No. 116: Week Ending November 13, 2009

The Court of Appeals released three unpublished decisions this week, including cases affirming the reopening of a dissolution judgment (Jodsaas v. Jodsaas), affirming denial of TPR (Welfare of the Children of R.W. and T.W.), and affirming granting of TPR (Welfare of the Children of V.J.J. and R.L.H.). .

Supreme Court Opinions (0)

The Minnesota Supreme Court did not release any opinions this week related to family law matters.

Court of Appeals Opinions (3)

• Jodsaas v. Jodsaas (Unpublished) Appellant-wife disputed the district court’s order reopening the property division portion of her dissolution judgment with respondent-husband. The appellate court affirmed because the district court did not err in reopening the judgment. (Hennepin County, Judge Bruce A. Peterson)
  
  At the time of dissolution, respondent had an extremely profitable business. When the business sustained net operating losses (NOL), respondent would use those losses to offset income and significantly reduce his taxes. The parties agreed that tax savings generated by the NOL, which were generally more than a million dollars annually, would be split evenly into the future. After respondent decided to sell the business, however, he had to use several million dollars from the NOL to offset tax liability from the sale. This meant there was less money in the NOL to split between him and appellant. Respondent moved to vacate the prior judgment based on changed circumstances, and the district court granted the motion.
  
  On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court erred by reopening the parties’ dissolution judgment. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that the substantial change in circumstances rendered the parties’ previous judgment no longer equitable. The appellate court noted that it was clear that the parties sought an equal share of the NOL in their original judgment. Appellant next argued that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented respondent from moving to reopen the judgment. The appellate court again affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that failure to open the judgment in this case would be inequitable.

  Full Opinion

• Welfare of the Children of R.W. and T.W. (Unpublished) Appellant-county contested the district court’s order denying its motion to terminate respondent-parents’ parental rights. The appellate court affirmed because the district court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. (Hennepin County, Judge Kathryn L. Quaintance)
  
  Respondent-mother’s parental rights to two children who are not the subject of this case were previously terminated. Appellant became involved with respondents regarding the children at issue in this proceeding because of emotional neglect, inadequate supervision, and domestic violence reports. The children were taken into emergency protective care, and respondents received case plans. Appellant moved for TPR on grounds of palpable unfitness, failure of reasonable efforts to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement, and the children were neglected and in foster care. The district court considered 99 exhibits and heard testimony from several witnesses, and ultimately found that TPR was unjustified on all of the statutory grounds alleged and that TPR was not in the children’s best interests.
  
  On appeal, appellant first challenged the district court’s ruling that TPR was not justified on grounds of respondents’ palpable unfitness. The appellate court affirmed, noting that the district court reasonably found that the presumption of palpable unfitness for respondent-mother due to prior TPRs was rebutted by testimony from a social worker and respondent-mother’s compliance with their case plans. The appellate court found that the district court reasonably denied TPR on grounds of palpable unfitness for respondent-father. Appellant next argued that the district court should have granted TPR because reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement. The appellate court again affirmed, noting that evidence supported the district court’s finding that respondents sufficiently addressed the domestic violence issues that previously created problems. The appellate court also affirmed that TPR was not in the children’s best interests, and noted that appellant’s entire motion appeared to be challenging the district court’s credibility judgments, which are not for the appellate court to second-guess.

  Full Opinion

• Welfare of the Children of V.J.J. and R.L.H. (Unpublished) Appellant-mother challenged the district court’s termination of her parental rights. The appellate court affirmed because clear and convincing evidence supported TPR on grounds that appellant’s child suffered egregious harm while in her care. (Blue Earth County, Judge Bradley C. Walker)
  
  Appellant has three children, all of whom are subject to the TPR proceeding. Two of these children are conjoined twins who were born prematurely. Doctors and nurses administered care to the twins, which involved several shots. When the hospital workers allowed appellant to take one of the twins home, they informed her that there would be some swelling around the injection sites. The child sustained several fractures and purple bruising. Appellant called the hospital and was advised to bring the child in but did not do so immediately. By the time appellant did bring the child to the hospital, the child’s thighs were extremely swollen and discolored, and his skin was hard to the touch. Medical professionals concurred that the child’s injuries were the result of non-accidental trauma. Criminal charges were brought against appellant as a result of these injuries. The district court ordered TPR on grounds that the child suffered egregious harm while in appellant’s care and appellant knew or should have known about the harm and its cause.
  
  On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred by concluding that her child suffered egregious harm while in her care. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the district court made extremely detailed findings which were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court noted that TPR was not improperly based solely on appellant’s charge for felony neglect of a child, and that a child can suffer egregious ham in appellant’s care even in the absence of such charges. The appellate court therefore affirmed TPR.

  Full Opinion