Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons
2012 Minn. LEXIS 390
| Minn. | 2012Background
- The case questions whether an order for protection (OFP) may be issued under the Domestic Abuse Act on behalf of a minor child when the child is not a victim.
- The district court issued an OFP against Coons, on behalf of P.M.S. (the minor), brought by Schmidt (the child’s nonvictim father-in-law/petitioner).
- The district court found abuse against the child’s mother, but did not find P.M.S. was a victim of domestic abuse.
- The guardian ad litem found no direct harm to the child and suggested the petition could be retaliatory or harmful to the mother’s custody case.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding OFPs are available only to victims of domestic abuse.
- The dissent argued that the statute permits relief for the protection of children when abuse occurs in the household, even if the child is not personally abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act allows an OFP on behalf of a nonvictim child | Schmidt contends the Act permits relief on behalf of a minor regardless of the child’s own victim status | The majority holds OFPs require the petitioner to be a victim or to petition on behalf of a victim | No; OFPs may be granted only to a victim of domestic abuse |
| Whether subdivision 6(a)(13) permits 'other relief' to protect a child | The dissent argues 6(a)(13) authorizes broader relief to protect children in the presence of abuse | The majority reads the statute as focusing on a victim and limits relief to that framework | No; the majority construes the statute to require a direct victim for OFP relief, excluding nonvictim children in this context |
| Whether the statutory framework contemplates two parties and limits the OFP to a victim | Petitioner argues the two-party framework and protection of children are consistent with broad relief | The majority emphasizes two parties (petitioner and respondent) with the victim as one party | Yes; the court holds two-party structure and victim focus limit OFP to victims of domestic abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992) (Act designed to protect victims of domestic abuse; provides a remedy to victims only)
- Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 682 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001) (Act's purpose is to provide speedy relief to victims of domestic abuse)
- State v. Errington, 310 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 1981) (Act described as a remedy for victims; emphasizes victims’ protection)
- State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (Statutes interpreted as whole; consider context; OFP available to victims in framework)
- Engquist v. Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2011) (De novo review for statutory interpretation questions)
- Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons, 795 N.W.2d 625 (Minn.App. 2011) (Court of Appeals decision on whether OFP could be issued without P.M.S. being a direct victim)