In re the Matter of: Angel A. Fernandez v. Cindy Marbella Anariba
A16-544
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Cindy Marbella Anariba, enrolled in Minnesota’s Safe at Home (SAH) program, listed her child’s residence as a confidential address after alleging respondent Angel A. Fernandez stalked her post-separation.
- Fernandez filed for custody and parenting time; Anariba counterclaimed for joint custody and sought child support while requesting confidentiality of the child’s address.
- The parties stipulated to custody and parenting time; the district court held an evidentiary hearing on child support and address disclosure.
- The district court ordered Anariba to disclose the child’s residence to Fernandez without making the specific findings required by Minn. Stat. § 5B.11.
- Anariba appealed; amici and the Secretary of State filed briefs. On appeal, counsel conceded custody/parenting-time issues were resolved and no live controversy remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anariba) | Defendant's Argument (Fernandez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with Minn. Stat. § 5B.11 before ordering disclosure of a SAH participant’s address | District court must make the statutory findings (need for address and no practicable alternative) and consider safety; it did not | Needed address to verify child's safety; SAH lacked process for notice to nonapplicant parent | Court found district court failed to make required § 5B.11 findings; ordered remand to dismiss disclosure order as the issue is moot |
| Whether procedural due process required notice/contest rights as applied to SAH address protection | SAH participant’s safety interest requires statutory protections; due process concerns if no notice to respondent | SAH’s lack of notice deprived respondent of ability to challenge confidentiality; he has interest in location for child’s safety | Court declined to decide due-process claim because respondent failed to notify the attorney general and because the dispute was moot |
| Whether the controversy was justiciable | Anariba argued parties’ disputes resolved and no live controversy exists | Fernandez maintained need to know address for child safety | Court held the controversy was moot and remanded to dismiss the disclosure order |
| Whether safety concerns were substantiated on record | Anariba offered agency verification and testified about stalking; no record evidence substantiated respondent’s safety concern | Fernandez asserted safety concern but did not substantiate stalking on record | Court noted no record evidence substantiating safety concerns and relied on mootness/concession |
Key Cases Cited
- Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 2014) (two-step procedural due-process framework)
- Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2002) (parents’ protected liberty interest in parent–child relationship)
- Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015) (mootness as standing over time — live controversy requirement)
- Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Comm. on Rules & Admin., 770 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. App. 2009) (mootness requires comparing relief requested with circumstances at decision time)
- Minn. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Integra Telecom, Inc., 697 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. App. 2005) (declining to consider constitutional challenge where attorney general not notified)