*1 (2007) employment that relator did not commit (emphasis add- R. 3310.2922 Minn. duty ed). by violating loyalty that wit- misconduct The determined ULJ testify regarding they what he owed Fairview. Because relator nesses could a good why failed to reason messages on voicemail what show heard produced hearing down and affidavit was not for the wrote they contemporaneously affidavit by the rules. There- because consideration hearsay is authorized result, change fore, allowing not err in the would not ULJ did the ULJ did testify refusing not err in to consider the affida- regarding mes- witnesses vit. producing the voicemail sages without Further, mes-
messages. the voicemail are cumulative evidence sages DECISION employees because Fairview circumstances a duty loy- Because relator breached already as to what was on the testified alty employer his and because he re- and the does not messages voicemail ULJ ceived a fair the ULJ not err hearing, did need to consider cumulative evidence. See determining discharged was relator (“A 3310.2914, subp. request R. Minn. disquali- for employment misconduct and if the subpoena may be denied testi- for receiving unemployment fied from bene- would be irrel- mony sought or documents fits. evant, immaterial, unduly cumulative or Affirmed. repetitious.”). Finally, argues relator an affidavit
ULJ should considered pro that he pharmacy
from a technician request
vided his for reconsideration. not that she did need
The ULJ determined affidavit because relator
to consider the good for not submit
failed show cause In the Matter of the WELFARE hearing the affidavit for the and be ting S.R.S., a Minor Child. OF likely change cause the affidavit would not No. A07-1725. “This court will defer to the the outcome. an additional decision not hold ULJ’s Appeals Minnesota. hearing.” Teleplan Wireless Ywswf Sept. (Minn. Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d App.2007) rela-
Upon request reconsideration evidentiary can an additional
tor an
hearing, the ULJ must order addi- showing hearing upon that evi-
tional at the initial not submitted
dence
hearing likely change outcome “would good cause
of the decision there previously not submitted that having 268.105, subd.
evidence.” (c)(1) (2006).
2(a), alleges affidavit dispensing
that Fairview violated rules however, it does show
prescriptions; *2 Mack, P.A., E. Daby
John Mack & New London, MN, appellant mother. Timothy Simonson, MN, Willmar, J. respondent father.
Considered and decided KLAPHAKE, MINGE, Presiding Judge; SCHELLHAS, Judge; and Judge. 26, 2005, the sota. On October OPINION was an incon- court found that Colorado KLAPHAKE, Judge. venient forum based on Colo.Rev.Stat. Kandiyohi Rhonda Strick *3 14-13-207(1) (2005), motion, stayed § (on behalf), chal- Minnesota her County, “jurisdiction and transferred of this case” concluding court’s order lenge Respondent objec- filed an to jurisdic- courts do not have that Minnesota jurisdiction. to the transfer of On tion child modify to Colorado tion 7, 2006, a court Minnesota district June jurisdic- order after Colorado respondent’s modify to visi- request denied asserts tion to Minnesota. court tation. After the Colorado ordered accept failure to the district court’s transferred, support con- jurisdiction child full faith and cred- jurisdiction violates the tinued to enforced be Colorado Constitution. clause the United States it authority. enforcement child not all reside parties Because 2006, Kandiyohi County, In on October has not been and the order Minnesota the Minnesota appellant, behalf moved does modify respondent’s to child court under Uniform to mo- obligation.1 Prior the October 2006 Act to tion, respondent appel- when learned that order, and be- child Colorado to attempting pursue lant was enforcement the full faith and credit clause cause sup- and modification of Colorado child not re- Constitution does United States requested that port order in he subject matter accept to quire Minnesota law, to the Colorado court hold conference of Minnesota violation clarify jurisdiction regarding issue we affirm. support. Respondent claimed that
child
FACTS
over cus-
while Minnesota
parents
unmarried
are
tody
prior
as a result of the
visitation
on
minor
who was born
Colorado
child
order,
court
he believed Colorado
Colorado
1,
11,
April
or about
1994. On
November
is-
over child
retained
1996,
granted appellant
court
14,
September
At
2006 confer-
sues.
child, granted respon-
custody of
sole
ence, respondent
the Colorado court
asked
visitation, and or-
Bormuth
Larry
dent
to
clarify
order and
address
previous
to
its
This or-
pay
support.
him to
child
dered
that would
authority
Colorado court
der was modified
issues under
jurisdiction for
July
2002.
In
February 2001
June
Uniform Interstate
2001,
approved appel-
(UIFSA).
September
an order issued
In
minor
to
with the
lant’s
relocate
2006,
its
21,
stated that
the Colorado court
child Minnesota.
26,
or-
concerning the
intent
October
en-
jurisdiction of the
to transfer
der was
moved
respondent
In August
Minnesota, including
ability
tire case to
his visitation
support,
child
enforce and
appellant requested
rights.
response,
In
trans-
all issues
stay
ordered
respondent’s
court to
expla-
without further
Minne-
ferred Minnesota
transfer
motion and
654(4) (2006)
county with a
provided the
application
Appellant's
for child
County
Title
Kandiyohi
pecuniary
in this matter.
services from
interest
Act,
Security
42 U.S.C.
IV-D of the Social
legal
nation
for its
basis
decision all 50
states
addresses
and without reference to the UIFSA.
enforce and
orders.
Martin L.
Olup,
Swaden & Linda A.
receiving
After
the Colorado court’s or-
(Supp.2007).
Minnesota Practice
7.25
der,
challenged appellant’s
respondent
mo-
Minnesota has codified the UIFSA at
modify support
tion to
on
(2006).
Minn.Stat.
518C
grounds
February
in Minnesota. On
§§ 518C.611 and
identify
518C.613
support magistrate
a Minnesota child
three circumstances under which Minneso
granted appellant’s
request.
ta
courts can assume
Respondent requested
mag-
review the
*4
a child-support order of another state.
Minnesota
in
istrate’s decision
Porro,
basis for its transfer of at 2. Full Faith Credit Clause this status conference. order, previous it Its which clarified at the contends that the full conference, status was an order transfer- faith and credit clause of the United States ring jurisdiction of a motion to requires Constitution Minnesota courts to visitation based on 14- Colo.Rev.Stat. accept the Colorado court’s order transfer 13-207(1) finding its jurisdiction. ring Con United States was an inconvenient original forum. The “[fjull requires stitution faith and transfer was based on given credit shall be state each to the need to determine the child’s bests inter- acts, public judicial proceed records and with ests information and avail- evidence every ings other State.” U.S. Const. Colorado, relating able IV, judgment art. is full “[A] entitled to regarding parenting decisions time. to questions faith and credit —even as Until Colorado court issued its order in second court’s —-when conference, after the status there was no questions quiry discloses those indication that the intended to fully fairly litigated finally been transfer decided which rendered when it transferred re- with *6 Duke, original judgment.” 375 Durfee spect to visitation. Nor did the Colorado 106, 245, 11 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 84 legal court state a for transferring basis (1963). Durfee, jurisdictional 186 In the jurisdiction order. question was whether the court which ren UIFSA, adopted The in both Minnesota the original judgment jurisdic dered had Colorado, specifically subject limits so, tion precluding to thus in further jurisdiction by matter identifying the cir- quiry by the second court. Id. at 84 cumstances may under which state exer- at Supreme S.Ct. 248. The United States jurisdiction to modify support cise held the second court the issued a different state. Minn.Stat. power duty inquire jurisdic to into the 518C.611, 518C.613; §§ Colo.Rev.Stat. tion original of the court that the issued (2008). 14-5-611, Porro, §§ 14-5-613 See judgment inquiry, and when that disclosed above, 675 N.W.2d at 86-87. As discussed jurisdictional fully the issues had been the circumstances that would allow Minne- fairly litigated by parties the and final jurisdiction sota to exercise do not exist ly court, inqui determined in that further here. UIFSA identifies how an issu- ry by into issues the second ing may jurisdiction state lose to precluded. court was Id. (although that loss does not present distinguishable is case from automatically grant authority to another it is not of order). state to Durfee in question Colorado court is However, at N.W.2d under the UIF- here, but the SA, Colorado, state, issuing has not Here, question court. long lost over its order. “As summarily addressed parties as one the individual or the child in response to respondent’s request state, continues to reside in issuing for a clarify status conference to long parties the issue and as agree as do not to jurisdiction, fully but it contrary, issuing tribunal con- has jurisdiction from one state to another. its or- jurisdiction over exclusive tinuing, ” in a herself virtual mother finds .... Unif. der (amended 1996), catch-22 A Colorado has Act, § 9 U.L.A. situation. 205 cmt. (2005). Here, to respondent lives Col- has appealing pre- to transfer time for that decision agreed he has never orado and sumably (obligor) without father expired of child matters Therefore, home challenging still has the decision his state court, point and now the Minnesota courts parties to the appropriate an connection by the authority Appel- its order. out error Colorado court.' justify its judicial find above, not filed lant well herself in As noted provisions Colorado court facilitated with the stalemate a written consent Although tempting it is and ar- UIFSA. allowing guably for this intermediate simply appropriate has refused to formulate continuing, jurisdic- appellate court a creative so- accept this exclusive situation, traditionally we to this explanation legal lution tion without further develop or extend law. decline so authority. Rather, that such we have observed is court did not con- Because the Colorado supreme role of our court. continuing it had decide whether sider and exclusive UIFSA, conclude that we
order under the juris- no
there is to which the Minne-
diction determination full faith and credit. court must
sota accept cannot conclude that Minnesota
We contrary provisions in both Colorado applicable the UIFSA Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of *7 and Minnesota. DECISION BRADLEY, Elizabeth Suzanne err in conclud- court did not Appellant. not have ing that Minnesota does No. A07-1847. In- under the Uniform Support Act terstate Appeals order, and its fail- Sept. did not violate accept jurisdiction ure to the Unit- faith and credit clause of the full
ed States Constitution.
Affirmed.
MINGE, (concurring specially). Judge the court and join opinion
I appeal presents separately.
write This anomaly. As the
statutory-jurisdiction indicates, the Uniform
majority opinion (UIFSA) transferring framework
establishes