FLCS No. 119: Week Ending December 11, 2009
The Court of Appeals released four unpublished decisions this week, including cases affirming the validity of an antenuptial agreement (Marnach v. Marnach), affirming issuance of an OFP (Sanz v. Biele), reversing custody placement with the children's maternal grandmother (Custody of K.A.R. and G.R.R.), and affirming TPR (Welfare of the Child of P.R.S., Jr.).
The Minnesota Supreme Court did not release any opinions this week related to family law matters.
- Custody of K.A.R. and G.R.R. (Unpublished) Appellant-mother disputed the district court’s order granting custody of her children to respondent-maternal grandmother. The appellate court reversed because the district court erred by finding that the presumption for custody with a natural parent had been overcome. (Wright County, Judge Stephen M. Halsey)
Appellant and the children in question’s father frequently used illegal drugs. After the children’s father died, appellant experienced some mental health problems and was involved in several altercations with the law. The children always lived with appellant, but occasionally stayed with respondent. The parties’ relationship became strained, and respondent moved for custody of the children as an interested third party. At trial, a GAL testified that appellant, while imperfect, had no serious parenting issues and the children were not endangered in her care. Nevertheless, the district court granted respondent’s motion to transfer custody on grounds that the children would be harmed by continuing to reside with appellant and transfer was in the children’s best interests.
On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court abused its discretion by transferring custody because respondent had not presented evidence to overcome the strong presumption that custody is proper with a child’s natural parent. The appellate court agreed, finding that under both caselaw and Minn. Stat. § 257C.03, the strong presumption for custody with a natural parent had not been overcome because respondent did not demonstrate a link between appellant’s personal shortcomings and her ability to parent the children. Appellant next argued that the district court abused its discretion by finding that respondent was an interested third party. The appellate court again agreed, reiterating that respondent did not demonstrate a nexus between appellant’s personal problems and her ability to parent.
Full Opinion 
- Marnach v. Marnach (Unpublished) Appellant-husband disputed the district court’s decision that that his antenuptial agreement with respondent-wife was procedurally and substantively fair. By notice of review, respondent argued that the district court erred by not awarding her $100,000 based on the antenuptial agreement. The appellate court affirmed. (Washington County, Judge Thomas G. Armstrong)
The parties were married and divorced once before; their first marriage lasted a little more than four years. Shortly after their first divorce, the parties reconciled and resumed cohabitating. During their cohabitation, respondent became pregnant with the parties’ third child, and she stated that appellant marry her by the end of the year or she would leave with the children. Appellant insisted on executing an antenuptial agreement, and he prepared one with his attorney, which respondent signed after consulting with her attorney. The agreement provided, among other things, that respondent was entitled to a house, car, and $2500 in monthly maintenance upon divorce. The agreement also stated that respondent was entitled to $100,000 if the parties remained married for one year, and $50,000 for each additional year. The parties remarried, and appellant initiated divorce proceedings less than one year later. That divorce was finalized thirteen months after the remarriage began. The district court found the antenuptial agreement valid and enforceable, and accordingly awarded respondent with the house, car, and maintenance, but did not award her the $100,000 because appellant initiated divorce proceedings less than one year after the marriage began.
On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred by finding the antenuptial agreement invalid. The appellate court rejected appellant’s arguments on grounds that the agreement was entirely appellant’s idea and was created by appellant and his lawyer. Respondent argued that the district court erred by failing to award her $100,000 because the parties were technically married for thirteen months. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the plain language of the agreement measured the marriage as ending on the date that either party filed for divorce.
Full Opinion
- Sanz v. Biele (Unpublished) Appellant-ex-boyfriend challenged the district court’s decision to issue an OFP at the request of respondent-ex-girlfriend. The appellate court affirmed because the district court acted within its discretion and did not misconstrue Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 subd. 2. (Hennepin County, Judge Jay Quam)
Respondent invited appellant to move in with her after they had been dating for approximately four months. Two years later, respondent asked appellant to leave. Respondent grabbed some of appellant’s shirts from the closet, and appellant then pushed respondent backward into a wall, causing bruising on her back and buttocks. Respondent called the police, and appellant fled. Respondent then filed for an OFP, which the district court granted based on a finding that appellant committed domestic abuse.
On appeal, appellant first argued that a single instance of injury cannot support an OFP. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the plain language of the Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 subd. 2 does not require multiple instances of injury. Appellant next argued that the language of the statute was unclear and that the district court erred in interpreting it. The appellate court again disagreed, explaining that the district court properly exercised its discretion and was entitled to make its own reasonable credibility findings.
Full Opinion
- Welfare of the Child of P.R.S., Jr. (Unpublished) Appellant-father contested the district court’s order terminating his parental rights. The appellate court affirmed because clear and convincing evidence supported all four of the district court’s statutory grounds for TPR, and TPR was in the child’s best interests. (Anoka County, Judge Alan Pendleton)
Appellant struggles with mental illness and substance abuse. He has also been convicted of numerous crimes. Respondent-county previously received reports that appellant was physically abusing the child in question, and after appellant was arrested for assaulting a police officer, the child was placed in foster care and adjudicated a CHIPS. The child struggles with significant behavioral and psychosexual issues, and was diagnosed with RAD. The district court gave appellant a case plan that required him to, among other things, participate in treatment for his mental health problems, drug addictions, and psychosexual issues. Appellant repeatedly failed to comply with his case plan and continued using drugs. The district court eventually relieved respondent of further reunification efforts, and respondent moved for TPR. At trial, the district court received testimony from several witnesses, including multiple doctors and psychologists, the child’s therapist, and the GAL. The witnesses all testified that appellant was currently unable to parent the child, and the district court granted TPR based on palpable unfitness, reasonable efforts failing to correct the conditions leading to the child’s out-of-home placement, the child being neglected and in foster care, and appellant refusing or neglecting to comply with parental duties.
On appeal, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying TPR. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that the district court’s decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence that TPR was justified on all four stated grounds.
Full Opinion
|
|
