In the Matter of: Paula Jean Ball, for herself and o/b/o W. v. B. and K. A. R. v. Steven �Captain AmericaŽ Rogers
A16-670
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Paula Ball (wife) and Steven Rogers (husband) divorced/separated in 2012; they share one child, W.B. (born 2010). Ball has another child, K.R., from a prior relationship.
- Ball petitioned for an order for protection (OFP) on Jan 5, 2016; Rogers filed a reciprocal petition. Both petitions were heard in Feb 2016.
- Ball alleged a history of verbal, mental, sexual, and violent abuse by Rogers, including a past direct threat to kill her, breaking doors, killing a dog in front of the family, and smashing a phone when she tried to call police.
- Rogers admitted some past conduct but argued the incidents were old (stale), disputed present threat, and contended removing W.B. from school once did not establish current intent to harm.
- The district court granted an OFP naming Ball as the protected party, awarded Ball sole physical custody of W.B., and ordered supervised parenting time for Rogers; the court later limited the OFP as to K.R.
Issues
| Issue | Ball's Argument | Rogers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an OFP may issue for Ball based on past threats and conduct | Past abusive history demonstrates present intent to cause fear; OFP appropriate | Past threats are stale; no present or imminent threat shown | Court affirmed OFP: present intent can be inferred from totality of circumstances, including history of abuse |
| Whether OFP also applied to W.B. | (Ball did not seek separate relief for W.B. in the OFP) | Rogers argued OFP affected W.B. without findings of abuse toward child | Court noted OFP on its face named only Ball; it did not decide an OFP for W.B. |
| Whether supervised parenting time was supported | Social-services concerns and history justify supervised visitation | Supervised visitation lacks specific finding of abuse to child and is unsupported | Court upheld supervised parenting time as part of custody order in context of OFP and abuse history |
Key Cases Cited
- Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. App. 2009) (present intent to inflict fear may be inferred from past abusive behavior)
- Boniek v. Boniek, 443 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. App. 1989) (OFP justified when person manifests present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm)
- Braend ex rel. Minor Children v. Braend, 721 N.W.2d 924 (Minn. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard; findings unsupported by record constitute abuse of discretion)
- Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. App. 2004) (appellate review of factual findings: clear-error standard and deference to credibility determinations)