In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend
869 N.W.2d 681
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Jamison Arend and respondent Jill Newstrand are an unmarried couple with three children; dispute concerns custody, child support, and parenting time.
- District court proceedings began April 27, 2011 to establish custody; a guardian ad litem was appointed; mother received temporary sole custody and father had temporary parenting time.
- Parties resolved several issues by stipulation; unresolved issues went to a referee for child support, parenting time with J.J.I.A., and contempt; both parties submitted to a referee’s findings.
- The referee recommended imputing income to father and ordering $376/month basic child support plus share of child-care costs, and restricting father’s parenting time with J.J.I.A.; the court found neither party in constructive civil contempt.
- Father appeals asserting (1) improper income imputation under Minn. Stat. § 518A.131, (2) violation of conscience rights, (3) abuse of discretion restricting parenting time, and (4) abuse of discretion denying contempt; the Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputing income for father but not mother in child support | Arend argues miscalculation of support. | Court properly imputed based on underemployment and history. | Imputation sustained; court properly imputed to father. |
| Application of Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subd. 1 and conscience rights | Conscience rights barred compelled evaluation. | Statute applied to safeguard children; burden proper. | Statute as applied does not violate conscience. |
| Restriction of father’s parenting time with J.J.I.A. | Restriction lacked sufficient best-interest findings. | Court has discretion to restrict parenting time where risk to child. | No abuse of discretion; restriction supported by record. |
| Constructive civil contempt by mother | Mother violated court order restricting access to information. | No express command in the order; no contempt. | No constructive civil contempt; court acted within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill-Murray Fed'n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High Sch., 487 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1992) (compelling state interest balancing test for conscience challenges)
- State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1990) (interference with religious freedom not allowed)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. App. 1998) (burden on religious beliefs in child-custody context)
- In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 2014) (fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in child care decisions)
- Geske v. Marcolina, 642 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 2002) (state has compelling interest in child welfare in parenting-time)