In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson v. Scott H. Meyer
A16-761
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Unmarried parents Scott Meyer (father) and Emily Pederson (mother) share an eight‑year‑old child; custody/parenting disputes have been litigated in Iowa, California, and Minnesota.
- Iowa had UCCJEA jurisdiction until March 31, 2015; Minnesota district court assumed jurisdiction thereafter.
- An Iowa order (based on an oral stipulation) granted Meyer up to ten overnight days per month (normally the first ten days) with a 30‑day written notice option to move dates; Iowa later granted Pederson sole legal custody.
- Meyer sought contempt for three alleged denials of parenting time (July 2014, Dec. 2014, Mar. 2015); Pederson countered, seeking contempt for Meyer’s unilateral decisions during his parenting time (medical/dental, school removal).
- A referee found Pederson in constructive contempt for the March 2015 parenting‑time denial and found Meyer in constructive contempt for violating Pederson’s sole legal custody (dental appointment, keeping child out of school); both were sentenced to stayed 30‑day confinements and fined. The district court affirmed on review; Meyer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meyer) | Defendant's Argument (Pederson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by not holding Pederson in contempt for Dec. 2014 parenting‑time denial | Meyer: Pederson denied his requested winter break days in violation of the Iowa order | Pederson: She initially refused but later agreed to Dec. 27–Jan.10; parties negotiated and Meyer withdrew insistence on Dec.1–6 | Court: No abuse; findings show no contumacious violation as to Dec. 2014 |
| Whether court properly held Meyer in contempt for interfering with Pederson’s legal custody | Meyer: Rights/responsibilities during parenting time are unclear; he believed day‑to‑day care allowed unilateral decisions | Pederson: She has sole legal custody (education/health) and Meyer unilaterally made medical/dental and school decisions | Court: Held Meyer in constructive contempt; findings support violation of sole legal custody and conditional confinement appropriate |
| Admissibility of earlier misconduct evidence (2007–2013) / discovery requests | Meyer: Requested admission/discovery of prior records (psych eval, custody eval, CA filings) as character/relevant history | Pederson: Prior records not relevant to contempt issues confined to specific time frame | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding that evidence and limiting discovery to relevant Iowa orders |
| Allegation of judicial bias | Meyer: Court showed bias (e.g., misstated who requested mediation; other court communications) | Pederson: Court actions were neutral procedural rulings; Meyer has repeatedly alleged bias when rulings disfavorable | Court: No disqualifying bias; reasonable objective person would not question impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. App. 2015) (civil contempt may be used to induce future compliance with court orders)
- In re Cascarano, 871 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. App. 2015) (distinguishing summary contempt from constructive contempt and outlining procedural safeguards)
- Crockerall v. Crockerall, 631 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. App. 2001) (standard of review for contempt orders and factual findings)
- Bormann v. Bormann, 644 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App. 2002) (appellate review limited when transcript is not provided)
- Hopp v. Hopp, 156 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. 1968) (eight‑factor test for civil contempt procedure and requirements)
- Cox v. Slama, 355 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 1984) (right to counsel for indigent in civil contempt where incarceration is a real possibility)
- Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. App. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admissibility of evidence in civil cases)
- In re Estate of Lange, 398 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. App. 1986) (bias must stem from extrajudicial source and cause actual prejudice)
- Olson v. Olson, 392 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. App. 1986) (requiring a showing of actual prejudice for judicial disqualification)
- State v. Cleary, 882 N.W.2d 899 (Minn. App. 2016) (standard for judicial impartiality evaluated from perspective of a reasonable layperson)