| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1002KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Kristi Wells, formerly known as Kristi Stimpfl, challenges the district court's order denying her request for an evidentiary hearing and refusing to modify the custody of the parties' children, who live with respondent Kurt Stimpfl. Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a change of venue to Wright County, respondent's county of residence. Because appellant failed to make a prima facie case for modification of custody, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a change of venue, we affirm. = = = = A07-658 PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order terminating appellant father's parental rights to his two youngest children, appellant argues that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that any of the alleged statutory bases for termination exists. We affirm. = = = = A07-0738 STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant father challenges the involuntary termination of parental rights to his son, arguing that the district court erroneously vacated a previously accepted voluntary conditional consent to termination of parental rights, and there is insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he is palpably unfit to be a parent. Under the unique procedural facts of this case, we conclude that father's parental rights were terminated without conditions by a final order based on father's consent, and the district court erred by vacating father's voluntary termination of parental rights and involuntarily terminating father's parental rights based on palpable unfitness. We therefore affirm voluntary termination of father's parental rights and vacate the order for involuntary termination. = = = = A06-1904 STONEBURNER, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment granted to respondent school district, appellant, trustee for the next-of-kin of J.S., argues that the district court erred in determining that (1) the school district did not owe a duty to prevent J.S.'s suicide; (2) as a matter of law, the conduct of the school district's employees did not cause J.S's suicide; and (3) appellant's claims are barred by the doctrines of official and vicarious-official immunity. We affirm. = = = = A06-1884 Boyd D. Amsler, Jr., Relator, vs. Phoenix Medical Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Relator challenges respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development's decision that he was discharged from employment for misconduct, disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator argues that the evidence shows that he was discharged before his employer became aware of his alleged misconduct and that the determination that he committed misconduct should be vacated. Because the record supports respondent's determination that relator was discharged for misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A07-661 A07-662 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M.B. and J.B., Parents. HUDSON, Judge On appeal in these consolidated termination-of-parental-rights appeals, appellant-mother argues that the record does not show that (a) she is a palpably unfit parent; and (b) termination of her parental rights is in the children's best interests. Appellant-father argues that (a) the record does not show that father is a palpably unfit parent; and (b) the county failed to make any efforts to reunite father and the children. We affirm. = = = = A07-851 In re the Marriage of: Kim Gail Capra, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Mario R. Capra, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant-father challenges the district court's decision to modify the custody provision in the dissolution judgment and decree and grant respondent-mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the children, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1) making findings that are unsupported by the evidence, and (2) declining to follow the recommendations of independent professionals. We affirm. = = = = A06-1437 ROSS, Judge Richard Meggitt appeals from the district court's order modifying child support and spousal maintenance. When Meggitt and Beth Arneson's marriage dissolved in 1993, they stipulated that Meggitt would pay Arneson child support until June 2006, the time when they expected the younger of their two sons to graduate from high school. They also agreed to an amount of spousal maintenance that Meggitt would pay, which would increase at that same point of graduation. In September 2005 Meggitt moved to modify child support. The child support magistrate ordered Meggitt to pay only part of the monthly support obligation, with the balance accruing as arrears. The district court reviewed the magistrate's order and extended Meggitt's duty to pay child support for one year to correspond with the modified graduation date of the younger son. The court also postponed the spousal-maintenance increase until that same date. The parties challenge different aspects of the district court's decision. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by extending child support or by leaving the overall support obligation intact, and because Arneson did not file a notice of review, we affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
