Stern v. Stern
839 N.W.2d 96
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Judy Stern, a grandmother, petitioned for de facto custody of her two grandchildren under Minn. Stat. § 257C.03.
- The children were in CHIPS protection and placement under a juvenile court emergency order dated September 18, 2012, with placement in Stern’s home as a relative foster placement.
- Before Stern’s de facto petition in family court, she sought permanent legal and physical custody in the CHIPS proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4.
- The county moved to dismiss, arguing the family court lacked concurrent jurisdiction because juvenile court held original and exclusive jurisdiction over CHIPS and permanency matters.
- The family court dismissed Stern’s petition, concluding juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction and Stern was ineligible to be a de facto custodian due to placement by court order.
- Stern appeals, arguing for concurrent jurisdiction and alleging due process violations; the issue centers on jurisdictional authority between family and juvenile courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court had concurrent jurisdiction over de facto custody petition | Stern argues for concurrent jurisdiction between family and juvenile courts. | County contends juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over CHIPS and permanency matters, precluding concurrent family court action. | No concurrent jurisdiction; juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Whether lack of concurrent jurisdiction denied Stern due process | Stern asserts due process rights to seek custody are violated by dismissal. | County contends Stern had avenues to seek custody in juvenile court and participate in CHIPS proceedings. | No due process violation; Stern had opportunities within CHIPS for permanent custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dead Lake Ass’n, Inc. v. Otter Tail Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2005) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties)
- Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562 (Minn.App.2010) (statutory questions reviewed de novo; interpretation of jurisdictional statutes)
- Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn.2000) (construction of statutes; aim to give effect to all provisions)
- City of St. Paul v. Eldredge, 800 N.W.2d 643 (Minn.2011) (statutory construction and interpretation principles)
- In re Custody of E.A.Q.D., 405 N.W.2d 262 (Minn.App.1987) (reversal to avoid concurrent proceedings; limits on simultaneous family and juvenile actions)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn.1988) (appellate review limits; matters not raised below not considered)