FLCS No. 117: Week Ending November 20, 2009
The Court of Appeals issued four opinions this week, including a published opinion interpreting the income imputation and voluntary unemployment provisions of Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 (Welsh v. Welsh). The three unpublished cases related to opinions affirming a maintenance award and classifying funds as marital property (Peppler v. Peppler), affirming children's placement in long-term foster care (Welfare of the Children of D.L.M., J.D.S., and R.J.), and affirming placement of Indian children with a non-Indian relative based on good cause under the ICWA (Welfare of the Children of M.A. and T.C.).
The Minnesota Supreme Court did not release any opinions this week related to family law matters.
- Welsh v. Welsh Appellant-mother disputed the district court’s modification of respondent-father’s child support obligation. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to impute income to appellant, but reversed and remanded for a consideration of whether appellant was “voluntarily unemployed” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 subd. 5. (Dakota County, Judge Timothy L. Blakely)
The parties, who were previously married, have two children together. Upon dissolution, appellant received sole physical custody of the children and respondent was ordered to pay $2100 in monthly child support. This amount was later increased to $2600 per month based on a COLA. After dissolution, respondent remarried and had another child. At some unclear point in time, appellant began receiving periodic payments from a trust account. Respondent moved to modify his child support obligation on grounds that his expenses had increased and appellant’s income had increased, rendering his current support obligation unfair. The district court granted respondent’s motion and reduced his child support obligation, finding that appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputing income to her.
On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 subd. 1 when it imputed income to her. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the district court reasonably found that appellant was capable of working and earning income in addition to her trust payments. Both actual income from the trust and imputed income due to appellant’s voluntary unemployment could be accounted for in determining respondent’s child support obligation. Appellant next argued that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 subd. 5 by finding her voluntarily unemployed. The appellate court agreed because the district court did not make sufficient findings to support this conclusion, and reversed and remanded for consideration of the appropriate statutory criteria.
Full Opinion 
- Peppler v. Peppler (Unpublished) Appellant-husband challenged the district court’s decision ordering him to pay maintenance to respondent-wife and classifying funds from one account as marital. The appellate court affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion. (Washington County, Judge Gary R. Schurrer)
During the parties’ twenty-six-year marriage, appellant worked and respondent, although well-educated, worked very little outside the home. Also during the parties’ marriage, appellant received an inheritance from his mother’s estate. He placed these funds in an account that was professionally managed, and later transferred those funds to another account. The inheritance grew substantially. Management fees and tax liabilities resulting from the account were paid with marital funds. Upon dissolution, the district court ordered appellant to pay respondent maintenance for three years and also classified the funds from appellant’s inheritance as marital.
On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court abused its discretion by awarding maintenance to respondent. The appellate court disagreed, finding that while respondent was well-educated and currently pursuing further education, she had been absent from the workforce for a long period of time and maintenance was reasonably necessary to maintain the marital lifestyle. Appellant next argued that the district court erred by classifying funds from his inheritance as marital. The appellate court again disagreed, finding that the appreciation in value of these funds was not the result of general passive growth, but was instead fostered by marital funds and marital effort.
Full Opinion
- Welfare of the Children of D.L.M., J.D.S., and R.J. (Unpublished) Appellant-county contested the district court’s decision to place respondent’s children in long-term foster care, rather than terminate respondent’s parental rights. The appellate court affirmed because the district court acted within its discretion. (Anoka County, Judge Douglas B. Meslow)
Appellant became involved with respondent and her children based on evidence that respondent had abused drugs and alcohol in front of her children, had failed to provide the children with proper food and hygiene, and had hit one of the children. The children were adjudicated CHIPS and placed in foster care. Respondent received a case plan that required her to, inter alia, complete chemical dependency treatment, follow recommendations of a psychologist, and search for a job. When respondent largely failed to complete her case plan, appellant moved for TPR. The parties subsequently signed a stipulation, which the district court approved, stating that respondent’s children would either be placed in long-term foster care or respondent’s parental rights would be terminated, depending on which option the district court found to be in the children’s best interests. The district court found long-term foster care to be in the children’s best interests, and appellant appealed.
On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred by ordering long-term foster care placement because appellant had not presented compelling reasons under Minn. Stat. § 260C.201, subd. 11(d)(3)(i) that TPR was not in the children’s best interests. The appellate court disagreed, declining to even address the statutory interpretation issue because the parties specifically stipulated to abide by the district court’s best-interests determination. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding long-term foster care to be in the children’s best interests, and therefore affirmed.
Full Opinion
- Welfare of the Children of M.A. and T.C. (Unpublished) Appellant-parents disputed the district court’s decision to place their children in long-term foster care with a non-Indian friend, as opposed to the children’s Indian grandmother. The appellate court affirmed because the evidence supported the district court’s factual and legal conclusions. (Dakota County, Judge Patrice K. Sutherland)
The county became involved with appellants and their children after law enforcement officers found drugs at appellants’ home within reach of the children. The county also discovered that appellant-mother had six other children, and her parental rights had been either voluntarily or involuntarily terminated with regard to all of them. The county provided myriad services to appellant, and at appellant-mother’s request, placed the children with a friend who is not Indian. Later, appellant-mother’s mother, who is Indian, offered herself as a possible placement option for the children. The children did not have a strong relationship with the grandmother, and she made little effort to get to know the children. The grandmother also sometimes allowed appellants to live with her. Based on the testimony of several witnesses at trial, the district court found that the ICWA’s preference that Indian children be placed with an Indian foster parent was overcome, and ordered that the children remain with appellant-mother’s non-Indian friend.
On appeal, appellants first argued that the county made insufficient efforts to reunite them with their children. The appellate court disagreed, citing the plethora of culturally appropriate services. Appellants next argued that the district court erred by finding good cause to overcome the ICWA’s preference for placing Indian children with Indian foster parents. The appellate court again disagreed, noting the district court’s many concerns that the children’s grandmother was not an appropriate placement option for the children.
Full Opinion
|
|
