Rohmiller v. Hart
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 37
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- B.H. is the daughter of Andrew Hart and Katie Rohmiller; Katie died in 2005 and B.H. lived with her aunt until 2008 when Hart obtained custody and moved with B.H. to Minnesota.
- A guardian ad litem recommended contacting the Rohmiller family with a plan for one four-hour visit per month progressing to one weekend per month, then one week of summer time with the Rohmillers; the district court adopted a visitation schedule.
- Kelli Rohmiller (the deceased mother’s sister) and Clayton Rohmiller (the maternal grandfather) sought visitation in 2008; the GAL and court findings favored some contact with both Rohmillers.
- In June 2010, the district court ordered B.H. to have one phone call per week with each Rohmiller, unsupervised joint visits one weekend per month, one week in summer, and specified visit timing around holidays, with Kelli able to visit without the grandfather present.
- Hart challenged the visitation amount for Clayton Rohmiller as excessive and argued the court could not grant visitation to Kelli Rohmiller under Minnesota law.
- The court affirmed the grandfather’s visitation time but reversed and remanded on the aunt’s visitation, holding statutory/caselaw did not authorize visitation for a deceased parent’s sibling, and struck a non-record document.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the grandfather’s visitation amount an abuse of discretion? | Hart argues the amount is excessive given pre-death contact. | Rohmiller argues the district court’s findings support the structured regime as in the GAL recommendation. | No abuse; amount affirmed consistent with GAL recommendation. |
| Does Minn.Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 1 authorize visitation to a relative of a deceased parent (aunt) of an unmarried minor child? | Hart contends the statute does not extend to an aunt of a deceased parent. | Rohmiller argues the district court may grant visitation to such relatives if in child’s best interests. | No; statute does not authorize aunt visitation in this context. |
| Does the district court have authority to grant visitation to a relative of the deceased parent other than specified relatives? | Hart asserts extending visitation beyond named relatives is improper. | Rohmiller urges broader judicial discretion under best-interests principles. | No common-law or statutory authority to grant such visitation; remanded accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. 1995) (district court has broad discretion over visitation)
- In re Custody of D.M.M., 404 N.W.2d 536 (Wis. 1987) (statutory construction; interpret grandparent-related visitation)
- Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010) (ex-write: expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon of construction)
- SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2007) (parens patriae; best interests balancing invalidates absolute parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- Burris v. Hiller, 258 Minn. 491 (Minn. 1960) (older aunt/uncle visitation with stipulation; distinguishable facts)
- Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. App. 1987) (limits on extending existing law by judicial action)
- State v. Williams, 771 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 2009) (statutory canon; supports strict interpretation of statutory lists)
- Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. 1995) (cited again for broad discretion standard)