Minnesota Court of Appeals' Judge Halbrooks Offers a Trio of Unpublished Divorce Opinions

Judge Halbrooks has been busy at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She recently issued three dissolution decisions, none of which were published. Two cases involved property allocation issues, one involved a joint physical custody award and two involved child support calculations:

  • Popel v. Popel: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody to the parties but remanded for a recalculation of child support and reallocation of non-marital interests.
  • Blaeser v. Fiscus: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify child support following the emancipation of appellant's oldest child. 
  • Murphy v. Murphy: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in the district court's unequal allocation of marital property.

Parental Alienation Syndrome in Minnesota Divorce and Custody Disputes

The Ohio Divorce Attorneys with Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues author the popular Ohio Divorce & Family Law Blog. They recently posted a useful article entitled "What is Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome?"

Attorney Robert Mues notes that there are a number of different factors and circumstances that have an effect on the determination of custody. As in Ohio, Minnesota judges must consider a number of relevant factors when determining the best interest of a child. One of those factors includes whether either parent has continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to parenting time or visitation as ordered by a court.

While visitation denials may be relatively easy to prove in court, that alone doesn’t amount to parental alienation. It is not uncommon for some amount of alienation to occur when parents first separate. Usually, the alienation subsides after the parents’ transition through the separation and move on with their lives. In some cases it doesn’t, and instead it continues and escalates to what has become referred to as “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”

This disorder was first identified by Richard A. Gardner, a forensic psychiatrist in the mid-1980s, who defines it as:

A disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming or brainwashing of a child by one parent to denigrate the other parent and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.

Mues accurately points out that there are three stages of parental alienation syndrome. These stages include mild, moderate and severe. In a mild case there are naive alienators and the perpetrator can be educated and changed. However, in a severe case the perpetrator is often delusional and their entire being is focused on destroying the other parent’s relationship with the child. Experts must be brought in to prove the alienation and, more importantly, to assist the child in gaining an accurate perspective on things.

Having handled many custody disputes involving parental alienation syndrome, I can honestly say that they are, by far, the most difficult and raw of all family cases. At the end of the day, the parent who engages in parental alienation behaviors is committing an act of abuse upon a child. The caselaw in Minnesota on this issue is rather undeveloped. But, like so many psychological theories and concepts, the public, and the courts, are becoming much more familiar with the syndrome and consequence of parental alienation.

There are some experts and jurists who have criticized the concept of parental alienation syndrome, calling it "inadmissible junk science." This author, however, questions how many times they've actually experienced and dealt with the conduct described by Gardner. Parental alienation syndrome is very real (no matter what you call it) and is an example of a parenting at its lowest and most neglectful level.

Child Custody, Child Support and Property Division on the Mind of the Minnesota Court of Appeals

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently rendered three family law decisions, none of which warranted publication. One case involved child support issues, another custody and child support and the third property valuation and division:

  • Donovan v. Donovan: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Shumaker held that a child support bonus provision was unambiguous and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to child support cases.
  • Adler v. Espinosa: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Lansing opined that the district court appropriately determined physical custody and child support obligation.
  • McCormick v. McCormick: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in district court's valuation of real estate and denial of fee award, but reversed district court's award of 100% of the marital equity in the homestead to wife.

Minnesota Supreme Court Orders Evidentiary Hearing in Open Adoption Contract Dispute

Three family law appellate decisions for review this week: one adoption opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court, one published interstate child support opinion from the Court of Appeals and one unpublished divorce opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

  • C.O. v. Doe: Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Page held that due process required an evidentiary hearing to take place before termination of adoption contract.
  • In re the Welfare of S.R.S.: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Published). Judge Klaphake opined that Minnesota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify father's child support obligation.
  • Baumgartner v. Baumgartner: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Chief Judge Toussaint found no abuse of discretion in disproportionate award of marital property and no error in valuation of marital property.