*1 Finally, disagree majority’s I with the con
clusion that the trial court included backpay compensatory of its determination Again,
damages. speaks clearly the statute ambiguity: and without “In addition to the remedies, in involving a case dis aforesaid * * n employment, crimination the admin judge hiring, istrative law order the upgrading aggrieved reinstatement or discrimination, party, who has suffered * * backpay or without (emphasis It is imagine statutory difficult to how the sсheme of remedies could be clearer: a claimant general under the MHRA is entitled to the “aforesaid remedies” accorded all victims of MHRA, and,
discrimination under the in ad dition, if specifically the claimant is a victim discrimination, employment then the
claimant also be entitled to an award of job backpay and other related remedies.3 To sweep remedy specific backpay into general category damages, as the ma does, jority legislature’s rewrites the remedi al scheme.
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE of (NMN) MAIDI, Abdelhamid petitioner, Appellant.
No. C9-93-1955. Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Sept. Similarly, housing general victims of discrimination to the remedies cited. See Minn.Stat. specific also have 2(b). remedies available in addition *2 Shapiro,
County Attorney, E. Asst. Stuart County Attorney, Hastings, Dakota for re- spondent.
OPINION
STRINGER, Justice. Algerian appellant,
On June citizen, was convicted of two counts of inter- fering rights in or custodial 1(4) violation of (6) (1994) taking after his two minor Algeria Stipula- in children to violation of Temporary Appellant argues tion for Relief. imposing upon court erred appellant, in of six addition to stay imposi- months incarceration under years probation for two tion of sentence count, $147,- on each a restitution order for 251.27,1 reрresenting expenses “counter-abducting” the children’s mother in Algeria. ap- the children peals conviction and restitution affirmed the Maidi, v. order. State granted appel- This solely petition lant’s for further review on the affirm. issue of restitution. We citizen, A.M., Appellant an American University at of Cannes the fall of met 1984, they July In were married daughter Minneapolis, A was Minnesota. August following bom June A was family Algeria. mоved to son Both children Algeria born in June 1988. Algerian citizen- have dual United States the chil- ship. In A.M. and December appellant to Minnesota where dren returned joined April them July appellant moved to Indiana resides. A.M. where his brother Stuart, Public M. Minnesota State John remained Minnesota children Colbert, L.A.M.P., Defender, St. Bradford [moving] would be A.M. “didn’t think that Paul, appellant. my myself my children or thing for best children in III, marriage.” Appellant visited the Attorney Humphrey, Gen- Hubert H. August 1991 for Backstrom, at end of eral, Paul, Dakota Minnesota St. James observed, accordingly. State appeals cal error the sentenc- 1. As the court of $147,527.27. (Minn.App.1994). Hence- 416 n. 1 ing at court set restitution $147,- forth, cited in accor- the restitution award will be A.M.’s totaled record indicates appeals' modification. dance with the court modified the cleri- 251.27. Thе court of week; $1,200 several weeks. After returned to end of the A.M. wired to Al- Indiana, geria. A.M. discovered Al- the children’s
gerian passports and United States were Saturday, On October denied, missing. Appellant initially but later required before was to return the taking admitted them. provided Stipulation, children as *3 lant message parents’ left a at A.M.’s home 1991, appellant In October and A.M. indicating family’s he could be reаched at his agreed to divorce and that A.M. would com- in Algeria. home telephoned When A.M. proceeding mence the divorce appellant Algeria, appellant in told her he yet residency lant had not established in keep Algeria, intended to the children that Appellant requested Indiana. liberal visita- mother, longer she “was no their and that privileges verbally agreed ap- and A.M. should forget [she] start a new life and about pellant could take the children to Indiana them.” during holiday Monday, a school from Octo- trial, through Friday, At ber the state introduced a October series of appellant from 1991. letters to A.M. written while appellant and the children in Algeria. were appellant The week before arrived to take encouraged The letters A.M. to return to children, spokе attorneys the A.M. with her Algeria, clearly but indicated he would not about appellant might her concern that seek permit her to return with the children to the keep to lawyers the children Indiana. Her United States. While the trial court did not Stipulation advised her to execute a for Tem- explore depth pursued by the avenues porary Relief and to serve papers the divorce children, A.M. to appears recover her it from appellant Burnsville, on when he returned to the record that through she was advised Minnesota. legal Minnesota, France, counsel in and Al- Upon appellant’s arrival in Burnsville on geria, through and Algerian Desk at the Friday, October he returned the Department, U.S. State that no international A.M., passports children’s United States to honoring treaties her were Algerian but retained passports. their applicable Algeria, as to Algerian and under day, Saturday, next law, appellant October permitted children would not be to was served with the country Summons and Petition leave the without their father’s con- divorce, appellant for and A.M. sent. reviewed Stipulation Temporary for Ap- Relief. A.M. thereupon contacted the “Interna- pellant objectеd provision to a prohibiting Program Group,” tional a team of former party removing either the children from special CIA and FBI agents, forces and re- the continental United States. After tele- tained them to recover her children from phone consultation attorneys, with A.M.’s the Algeria. After an initial attempt, aborted parties Stipulation altered the require ap- to the counter-abductiоn succeeded and A.M. pellant to return the children’s American ultimately regained custody of the children passports to specifically provide A.M. and to April 1992. AM.’s financed their Indiana, for a week of subject visitation to daughter’s efforts to contact and retrieve the appellant condition that return the chil- children, $141,- at a approximately cost of dren to their mother in Minnesota mid- Aрpellant 527.72. voluntarily returned to the night on October Appellant 1991. and United charges States to face in November thereupon
A.M. signed Stipulation initialed the Sunday, alterations on October The trial appellant court found guilty of 13, 1991. two depriving counts of another of custodial Monday, On appellant October parental rights in violation of Minn.Stat. children, three, ages 1(4) (6) then six and left and referred thе for Appellant Indiana. called A.M. from County matter to Dakota Community Cor- Indiana the next and asked her to wire presentenee rections for a investigation. The money Algeria, stating to pay he presentence would her investigation report, prior issued back when he returned the children at the receipt of the victim’s affidavit of (1) court erred restitution, initially three reasons: recommended Community $10,000, disregarding Corrections’ res- payable amount of in the (2) 24,1993, recommendation; August public poli- On titution month installments. reasons, cy to six months “counter-abduction” court sentenced of sentence stay imposition qualify for restitution jail under a should not probation for two on subd. 4 and Minn.Stat. placed count, subject con- 611A.04; to several years each
ditions, among them: appellant’s ability failed tо consider pay required as deter- is to
[Defendant] on a by Community Corrections mined Community schedule to be determined argument appellant’s As to first pay at least $200.00 Corrections adopt court was bound during peri- month towards *4 Community recom Corrections’ restitution Any which remains probation. of sum od mendation, appellant alleges that “the court probation of unpaid at the termination authority to increase did not have the judgment a civil be entered as shall beyond what amount of restitution ordered this defendant. Community had been determined Correc September to the court dated a letter tions.”
1993, Community recommended Corrections $5,723.55,on the amount of restitution § 609.135 Minnesota Statute for the theory that while reimbursement governing stays imposition of or execution of expenses apprоpriate, was counter-abduction clearly provides that restitution is sentences expenses incur these was A.M.’s decision to Thus, an intermediate sanction. while the recovery personal choice and her her own agent may designate to seek infor through civil court pursued should be proper regarding mation amount of resti a restitution system.2 The court ordered pursuant tution to Minn.Stat. heаring. 1(a) (1994), delegate cannot subd. hearing on At the restitution November authority impose its restitution. State court found that the counter-abduc- (Minn.1995) Henderson, qualified expenses properly as restitu- tion (holding Special Supervision Program pursuant to Minn.Stat. subd. tion sanction within the mean “is an intermediate * * * of the amount and ordered restitution is ing [and] of Minn.Stat. $147,527.27, counseling plus future losses for authority beyond the of Correc therefore children. Based on the for A.M. or the impose”). Consequent Department tions finding that earned $6.50 court’s sentencing court did not err disre ly, the hour, the court ordered Community restitution garding Corrections’ month installments recommendation. paid in full. until the sum is argument is the Appellant’s second appeals affirmed the convic- pivotal before the court —whether issue order, holding that tion and expenses of “counter-abduction” expenses properly qualify counter-abduction under Minn. the criteria for restitution meets criminal restitution Minn.Stat. as 609.26, 4 and 611A.04. We §§ Stat. 520 N.W.2d 611A.04. State v. prop was that the restitution order conclude ap- granted This court respect. in this er petition for review on the issue of pellant’s restitution. in a permissible provision is a Restitution depriving another for conviction not contest the dollar
Appellant does
Rather,
parental rights in violation
argues
or
he
of custodial
amount of restitution.
609.10(5)
609.26.
inappropriate
is
for Minn.Stat.
that the restitution order
expenses
recognize
for
a tort action
Community
apparently
does not
was
un-
Corrections
Dunn,
deprivation
a result of
opinion
incurred as
our
in Larson v.
aware of
(Minn.1990),
holding that Minnesota
N.W.2d 39
statute,
language
The restitution
The broad
of Minn.Stat.
strongly
(1994),
legisla
provides
pertinent
indicates a
part
611A.04
give
tive intent
wide discretion to the
as follows:
ordering
court when
restitution of
right
A victim of a crime has the
to receive
in returning
incurred
a child to the
part
disposition
restitution as
of a
parent. Clearly,
custodial
legislature
charge
juvenile
criminal
delinquency-
or
could have
limited the
court’s dis
proceeding against the
if
offender
the of-
by drafting
cretion
delinquent.
provide
“any
fender is convicted or
4 to
expenses”
found
reasonable
legislatures
Instead,
other state
court,
have done.3
person
agency designat-
or a
our
chose not to use such a modi
court,
request
ed
shall
information
scope
fier to limit the
of recoverable ex
from the victim to determine the amount of
* * *
penses
under sectiоn
restitution owed.
Information sub-
clearly
statute
unambiguously provides
relating
mitted
to restitution must describe
court with discretion to assess
loss,
the items or elements of
itemize the
any expense
in returning
the child.
claimed,
total dollar amounts of restitution
long
We have
held that where a statute’s
specify
justifying
the reasons
these
clear,
meaning is
as we conclude it is in the
amounts, if restitution is in the form of
case,
present
judicial
there is no room for
money
property.
request
A
restitu-
construction.
Humphrey,
Arlandson v.
include,
to,
but is not limited
Minn.
see Minn.
*5
any out-of-pocket
resulting
losses
(1994).
Thus,
§
Stat.
645.16
may
the court
crime, including
costs,
therapy
medical and
not
exempt
construe the statute to
certain
replacement
wages
services,
and
and
types
expenses,
though
even
may
we
con
expenses.
funeral
expenses
sider these
inappropriate. To do so
present
in the
case
contrary
would run
to the
611A.04,
1(a) (1994) (em-
§
Minn.Stat.
subd.
language
clear
of both sections 611A.04 and
added).
phasis
Indeed,
germane
more
to the
609.26, delegating the decision to the sen
case,
facts
of this
specifi-
has
tencing court. We therefore decline to inter
cally expressed
pa-
its intent that victims of
pret
the statute to exclude the counter-ab
rental abduction recover costs incurred in
expenses
by
duction
sentencing
ordered
recovering abducted children. Minn.Stat.
court, and we conclude that
the order of
609.26,
§
provides:
subd. 4
“In addition to
restitution was within
court’s
any
imposed,
discretion.
assess
any expense incurred
returning
the child
reading
Our broad
§
against any person
violating
convicted of
this
4
is consistent with thе established
(1994)
§
section.” Minn.Stat.
subd. 4
policy objective of both the state and federal
(emphasis
government
abduction,4
parental
to deter
2C:13^t(f)(l) (West
§
3. See N.J.Stat.Ann.
Supp.
fendant
by
parent
reasonable costs incurred
a
* * *
* * *
1995) (''[A] person
[of
convicted
interference
child”)
taking
because of the
of the
custody]
shall make restitution of all reason
added);
(emphasis
Vinyard,
State v.
50 Wash.
costs,
expenses
including
able
reasonable
888,
App.
(1988) (noting
751 P.2d
342
fees,
counsel
by
parent
incurred
the other
§
requires
Wash.Rev.Code
person
9A.40.080
return.”)
securing
added);
(emphasis
the child’s
interfering
convicted of
with custodial
to
(West
§
Wash.Rev.Code Ann.
Supp.
9A.40.080
expenses”
reimburse “reasonable
re
incurred
1995) ("[A]ny
expenses
reasonable
incurred in
child),
covering the
part
on other
modified
* * *
locating
returning
a child
shall be as
Davison,
grounds,
State v.
116 Wash.2d
sessed
a defendant convicted [of custodi
(1991).
P.2d 1374
But
see Or.Rev.Stat.
interference].”)
added);
(emphasis
al
Wis.Stat.
163.257(2) (1993)
§
(“Expenses
by
incurred
948.31(6) (West
1994)
Supp.
Ann.
(regarding
**
*
parent
locating
lawful custodial
custody by parent, permitting
interference with
court
taken,
regaining physical custody
person
any
to order reimbursement "for
reason
kept
enticed or
in violation of
[custo
this section
able
any person
incurred
any
“pecuniary damages”
dial
are
interference]
governmental entity
locating
returning
* *
purposes
*.").
of restitution
child")
added);
(emphasis
see also Vanness v.
State,
605 N.E.2d
(Ind.Ct.App.1992)
782-83
(noting
(1990)
pro
Congress
that Ind.Code
Kidnapping
35-42-3-4
impose against
enacted the Parental
Pre-
vides
(PKPA)
that “a court
the de
vention Act
in 1980. 18 U.S.C.
mathematically
pay
judges
trial
to
hour and
can never
оff
discretion
with the broad
monthly
the full restitution order at the
in-
rights. Lar
and visitation
protect custodial
(Minn.1990)
Dunn,
payment
stallment
ordered. Pursuant
460 N.W.2d
v.
son
611A.04,
Tischendorf,
the order of
321 Minn.Stat.
(citing Tischendorf
(Minn.1982)
judgment.
trial
restitution was docketed as a civil
(upholding
Thus,
par
unpaid
interest accrues on the
balance
that a noncustodial
judge’s requirement
taking
overseas
to Minn.Stat.
at a rate
a child
post
ent
bond before
denied,
visitation),
greater
appellant’s monthly payments.
than
cert.
460 U.S.
for extended
(1983)). Therefore,
appellant argues,
tims of abductions have a civil cause of action like A.M. do not court, determining whether with custodial tortious interference order amount of resti- Larson, at 47. In Lar 460 N.W.2d tution, following shall consider the factors: that Minn.Stat. specifically noted son we (1) the amount of economic loss sus- judges impose costs permits trial tained the victim as a result of the parent recover the custodial offense; and ing a child. Id. at 46. income, resources, and obli- note, however, that this ease rais- also gations We of the defendant. the effect of regarding concerns whether es of a restitution order
this court’s affirmance affirmed the res expenses ef- counter-abduction that includes reasoning titution that the award potentially viola- fectively conduct condones ability appellant’s considered Although laws. we tive of another nation’s in when it ordered month violations, this court is do not condone such stallments. State v. 520 N.W.2d *6 language of the statute bound the clear agree. 419 We Minnesota legislature, which does not enacted the explicit § Statute 611A.045 is not as to how In- provide exception on such a basis. income, court must consider the re the deed, legislature’s, and not this it is the sources, obligations of the court’s, excep- responsibility provide such imposing order. In when the restitution tions to statute. 611A.04, 1(c),5 § view Minn.Stat. however, argues permits the court to order Finally, appellant that which partial permitting the full by or restitution while sentencing court abused its discretion $147,- as a civil amount of restitution to be docketed dering in the amount of legislature judgment, we conclude that payable month install ments, give flexibility to only intended to the courts wide when earns $6.50 (1988); (1988), grant deny restitution or § 42 U.S.C. The court shall 28 U.S.C. 1738A partial the record restitution and shall state on legisla- §§ The Minnesota 663 decision on restitution if its reasons for its in 1963 ture first addressed abduction relating has been information to restitution felony created a level offense for when it presented. grants partial restitu- If who abduct their children with intent specify tion it shall also amount full 17, May Act of interfere with custodial judg- may a civil restitution that be docketed as 1185, 1963, 753, ch. 1963 Minn.Laws may court not ment under subdivision 3. The require 1203-04, at Minn.Stat. codified victim waive or otherwise for- that the 538-39, State, 177 Olsen v. 287 Minn. any action as a condi- feit or causes of (1970) (upholding statute 427 partial granting restitu- tion of challenge); see also Daniel constitutional tion. Comment, Oberdorfer, Larson v. Dunn: Toward 611A.04, 1(c) (1994) (empha- Response Kidnapping, to Parental 75 a Reasoned provision added this sis (1991).’ n. 57 Minn.L.Rev. during same session it enacted Minn.Stat. 611A.045, current form. Act of subd. 1 in its 611A.04, 1(c) 21, 4(c), provides Aрr. Minn.Laws 5. Minn.Stat. ch. pertinent part as follows: 611A.045, that structure restitution orders take into subd. 1. The decision of the court of is affirmed. ability pay, a includ- account defendant’s here, monthly a ing, as the court did reduced Affirmed.
payment that is within defendant’s means. PAGE, (dissenting). Justice respectfully I today dissent. The court interpretation is consistent with This holds that under Minnesota law an individual legislative history of Minn.Stat. receive restitution for the restitution subd. which indicates stat in the counter-abduction of children from a primarily compensate ute was intended to nation, sovereign though even there is a sub- Construing victims.6 stantial that likelihood the counter-abduction award, large permit sovereign violated the law of that nation. provided the court considers the defendant’s shall all We rue the that this state imposing payment resources whеn sched condones, encourages, if not the violation of ule, is also with this consistent court’s hold sovereign of a laws nation. Fader, (Minn. ing in State v.
1984). TOMLJANOVICH, Fader, (dissenting). Justice that we held while restitu purpose have the dual of rehabili join I Page. the dissent of Justice tating compensating the defendant and victim, primary purpose compensate is to
victims. Id. at 48.
Consequently, we conclude that the sen- tencing considered the applied
lant’s resources when it 14, H.Jud.Comm., Hearing 6. See judgment on H.F. provide “backstop" 76th were intended to (audio 1) Minn.Leg., (com- tape Jan. # acquisition for an “unanticipated offender’s Sepler, ments of Fern Executive Director of lottery. Hearing wealth” such as the See on H.F. Council, Advisory Crime Victim and Witness in- (comments Rep. Kelly). Sepler When Ms. by Rep. Kelly, sponsor troduced bill); House of the Senate, emphasized testified before the she S.Jud.Comm., Hearing on S.F. Crim. judgment the civil whs intended to enable a vic- L.Div., (audio Minn.Leg., 76th Jan. pursue tim to full restitution in the event a defen- (comments tape) Sepler, of Fern introduced gained “unexpected dant wealth or [a] windfall." bill). Spear, sponsor Sen. Senate *7 51, S.Jud.Comm., Crim.L.Div., Hearing S.F. on (audio bill, Leg., (com- Introducing Representative tape) 76th Minn. Jan. Kelly stat- provisions Sepler, permitting partial grants ed that the Spear, ments of Fern introduced Sen. bill). sponsor restitution with the remainder entered as a civil Senate