Ramsey County v. Guardian D.F. ex rel. of K.D.F.
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 11
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- D.F. is mother and court-appointed guardian for K.F., father of a child born to T.M.Y.
- District court proceedings covered parentage, custody, child support, and parenting time disputes.
- CSM appointed counsel for D.F. through the father-child hearing, with discharge to follow regardless of unresolved issues.
- At the parentage hearing, K.F. admitted paternity; D.F.'s attorney sought extending representation, CSM denied.
- CSM adjudicated K.F. as father, awarded T.M.Y. sole custody, set child support, and planned a separate hearing on parenting time; denied extending counsel.
- D.F. sought a writ of mandamus to compel extended counsel for parenting time; issue centers on statutory scope of representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel extended counsel for parenting time. | D.F. relies on Latourell; argues extended representation is required. | CSM's discretion governs; no duty to extend beyond parentage scope. | Writ denied; discretionary scope limits do not mandate extension. |
| Effect of 2012 amendment to Minn. Stat. 257.69, subd. 1 on counsel scope. | Latourell controls previously; amendment narrows representation to parentage. | Amendment governs and Latourell is superseded. | Latourell no longer controls; representation limited to establishment of parentage. |
| Does the amended statute authorize extending counsel beyond parentage for parenting time? | Counsel should extend to parenting-time issues under the statute's broader representation. | Representation is limited to establishing parentage, not custody/visitation. | No; representation is limited to parentage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Latourell v. Dempsey, 518 N.W.2d 564 (Minn. 1994) (attorney appointment extends to custody/visitation in prior law)
- State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 1999) (mandamus standard: must show no discretion in duties)
- McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1989) (abuse of discretion standard for mandamus when discretionary)
- State v. Pero, 590 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. 1999) (extraordinary remedy; exceptions and limits)
- Bray-lock v. Jesson, 819 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2012) (statutory amendment timing and applicability)