Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin
A16-340
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Parents of a child born in 2007; father was adjudicated the biological parent and parties were awarded temporary joint legal and physical custody in a 2010 amended judgment and decree.
- Parenting-time schedule: alternating week structure with each parent granted two nonconsecutive, uninterrupted weeks (Saturday 9:00 a.m. to next Saturday 9:00 a.m.); order prohibited father from attaching an uninterrupted week to week-two parenting time.
- Parties have high conflict; a parenting-time expeditor (PTE) was appointed in 2013 but services were suspended in 2014 when father fell behind on PTE fees.
- In October 2015 mother moved to (1) prohibit attaching uninterrupted vacation weeks to holiday time, (2) obtain compensatory parenting time, (3) require father to pay outstanding uninsured/unreimbursed medical/dental expenses, (4) require father to pay PTE fees, and (5) recover attorney fees.
- District court: (a) prohibited either parent from exercising uninterrupted parenting time immediately before or after holiday time (loss of a week for violation), (b) denied compensatory parenting time, (c) ordered father to provide insurance card and reimburse mother for past uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses and to split future such expenses 50/50, (d) ordered father to pay PTE fees and awarded mother attorney fees.
- Appeal: father challenged (1) best-interests/endangerment analysis for the parenting-time prohibition, (2) denial of dismissal for mother’s failure to file a Parenting/Financial Disclosure Statement under Minn. Gen. R. Pract. 303.02, and (3) the 50/50 allocation of uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Weiss (plaintiff/mother) Argument | Griffin (defendant/father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly considered child’s best interests and needed to apply the endangerment standard before prohibiting use of uninterrupted weeks immediately before/after holidays | Prohibition is needed to stop parents from combining uninterrupted weeks with holiday time, reducing conflict and serving child’s best interests | District court failed to make specific findings on all statutory best-interests factors and did not apply the endangerment standard required to restrict parenting time | Court affirmed: findings showing consideration of relevant factors (esp. inability to cooperate) were sufficient; change was a non-restrictive modification (no reduction in parenting time), so endangerment findings were not required |
| Whether mother’s failure to file a Parenting/Financial Disclosure Statement warranted dismissal or other sanction under Minn. Gen. R. Pract. 303.02 | Form required when requesting temporary financial relief; mother failed to file it so sanctions are appropriate | Father asserted failure; district court denied sanction | Affirmed: father failed to show prejudice from omission, so any error was harmless |
| Whether district court correctly allocated past and future uninsured/unreimbursed medical expenses 50/50 | Court should order father to reimburse mother for past expenses and split future expenses equally to avoid disputes | Father argued allocation was improper because statute mandates allocation based on proportionate shares of combined monthly PICS (child-support calculation) | Reversed and remanded: allocation cannot be automatic 50/50; statute (Minn. Stat. § 518A.41, subd. 5) requires allocation according to proportionate shares of parents’ incomes |
Key Cases Cited
- Dahl v. Dahl, 765 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. App. 2009) (distinguishes modification from restriction of parenting time and outlines standard for substantial change)
- Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. App. 2015) (discussion of requirements for findings under best-interests statutes)
- Stich v. Stich, 435 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989) (appellate review requires sufficiently detailed findings to show consideration of relevant factors)
- Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. 2002) (child-support determinations are discretionary but must conform to statutory limits)
- Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013) (mandatory statutory child-support language imposes independent obligation on the district court)
- Anderson v. Archer, 510 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1993) (example of insubstantial parenting-time change analysis)
- Clark v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. App. 1984) (example where gradual reduction in parenting time was substantial)
- Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1949) (appellate error not presumed; burden to show prejudice)