In the Matter of: Chelsea Chantel Hall and o/b/o J. B. A. v. Jamison Robert Arend
A15-2088
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Hall and Arend were in a long-term relationship and share a 23-month-old child; an incident occurred in which Hall says Arend pushed her and later grabbed the child from her arms.
- Hall obtained an ex parte emergency order for protection naming herself and the child as protected persons; the referee’s form was altered to prohibit contact only with Hall.
- At the full hearing, Hall testified Arend yanked the child’s arm and took the child; Arend denied hitting Hall, presented an audio recording he said captured the event, and disputed Hall’s timeline.
- The district court found Hall credible, Arend not credible, characterized the recording as manipulative, and issued a continuing order for protection covering both Hall and the child.
- Arend appealed, arguing the evidence did not show domestic abuse against the child and raising due-process objections to adding the child to the continuing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports continuing OFP as to the child | Hall: Arend wrenching/pulling the child’s arm and taking the child constituted physical harm/bodily injury to the child | Arend: No evidence the child sustained physical harm; recording and testimony undermine Hall’s account | Reversed as to the child — record lacks proof child suffered physical harm or bodily injury, so OFP as to child not supported |
| Burden of proof for OFP | Hall: Preponderance of evidence that domestic abuse occurred against protected persons | Arend: Insufficient preponderance re: child | Court applied preponderance standard and found petitioner failed to meet it for child |
| Whether intent to harm is required to show "physical harm" under the Domestic Abuse Act | Hall: N/A at appellate level | Arend: Asserted lack of intent to harm the child | Court declined to resolve intent issue (not raised below and unnecessary after reversal) |
| Due process re: inclusion of child in continuing OFP | Hall: Inclusion proper given allegations and ex parte order naming child | Arend: Due-process violation because child was not named in the emergency contact-restriction portion | Court did not address due-process claim as reversal on evidentiary grounds made it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Braend v. Braend, 721 N.W.2d 924 (Minn. App. 2006) (standard of review for OFP issuance and findings)
- Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons, 818 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. 2012) (OFP may be granted only to a victim of domestic abuse)
- Oberg v. Bradley, 868 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 2015) (petitioner bears preponderance burden for OFP)
- Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1988) (trial-court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. App. 2004) (application of "inflicted physical harm" language)
- Kass v. Kass, 355 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. App. 1984) (discussion whether statute requires present harm or present intent)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (issues not raised in district court generally not considered on appeal)
- Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1982) (issues not briefed are forfeited)