All in the Family: Ruling reiterates broad spectrum of principles

In considering whether to appeal a trial court order, we naturally begin by considering the odds of success. Statistically, most don’t succeed. How about reversal and remand on every issue presented? Rare as a tasty school lunch.

But, that’s just what happened in a recent decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Shaw v. Shaw, No. 02-FA-13-193, 2016 WL 1396705 (Minn. Ct. App. April 22, 2016). Despite the fact that the Shaw decision is unpublished, it deserves a second look — given the unique disposition of the issues.

In Shaw, mother appealed, arguing the lower court erred by: (1) awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody; (2) ordering a parenting time schedule that separates the minor children; (3) improperly calculating child support; (4) improperly calculating the amount, and duration, of spousal maintenance; (5) improperly valuing and allocating the marital and non-marital assets of the parties; and (6) denying her claim for need-based attorneys’ fees.

Best interest factors

Wife argued the district court erred by weighing one of the best-interest factors to the exclusion of the six factors that were found to favor Wife, and six additional factors that were found to be neutral. Following trial, the lower court found that Wife engaged in significant gatekeeping activities that could “severely rupture the parent-child bond” among Husband and the children.

The court of appeals, however, disagreed — finding no record evidence that would suggest that Wife had done so recently. While the custody evaluator’s report indicated that there was gatekeeping by mother early on, it appeared to the appellate court that pattern did not continue once a parenting plan was put into place more than a year before trial.

The takeaway? Even if clients engage in conduct that might otherwise be viewed negatively by a judge early on, they have an opportunity to cure it.

Joint physical custody: requested relief

The district court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the minor children.  However, as pointed out by the court of appeals, the lower court must analyze the joint custody factors “if either party seeks joint legal or joint physical custody.”

The lower court made a specific finding that Husband “requested an award of joint legal and physical custody.” However, the court of appeals confirmed that at no time did Husband make such a request. Instead, both parties asked the district court to award them sole legal and physical custody.

By adopting neither of the parties’ proposals, and instead awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody, the district court erred.

The takeaway? Do not overlook the relief sought within the initial pleadings. Seek to amend, if need be. Make a request for alternative relief at trial, if necessary.

Joint physical custody: statutory factors          

Despite the foregoing inability of the lower court to award joint physical custody, the court analyzed the four factors mandated by statute (prior to August 1, 2015).

Of importance, the district court found that the parties could not cooperate with one another, citing clear “hate” among them. Still, the court granted joint legal and physical custody. The court of appeals found clear error.

The takeaway? Joint custody is not appropriate in situations in which there is an absolute lack of cooperation among the parties.

In addition, the district court addressed the dispute resolution methods of the parties. The court found that the willingness of the parties to use the services of a parenting time expediter weighed in favor of awarding joint custody. Two issues arose.

First, the district court appointed a parenting consultant, despite a statutory limitation to the appointment of a parenting time expediter. Second, the lower court granted authority to the parenting time expediter that was neither provided for by statute, nor agreed to by the parties.

Upon the foregoing, the court of appeals found that the lower court committed error, and found it’s dispute resolution analysis meritless.

The takeaway? Remember, there is a distinct difference between a parenting time consultant and a parenting time expediter. Consultants are granted the power by agreement of the parties, while expeditors are granted limited statutory authority.

In terms of whether it would be detrimental to grant one parent sole authority over the upbringing of the children, the lower court accepted the custody evaluator’s testimony concerning neither parent being the “better” parent. For that reason, it found that it would be detrimental to the children if one parent were to have sole authority over their upbringing.

However, the court of appeals directed attention to the Wopata decision, and indicated that the district court clearly erred. The basis? The fact that parents are equally qualified to raise children does not mean that they are qualified to raise them jointly.

Parenting time

In terms of parenting time, Wife argued that the district court committed error in establishing a parenting time schedule that separated the children from one another most of the time, without making adequate findings to support that separation. The schedule afforded the children four weekdays during every two-week period together.

In response, the court of appeals found that there was no record evidence to suggest that limited time together served their best interest. The court pointed out that neither the parties, nor the custody evaluator, proposed such a schedule.

The takeaway? Judges like to keep siblings together as much as possible. If you intend to seek a parenting time schedule of that creates substantial separation among siblings, be prepared to present evidence to support very specific findings in support of that position.

Asset valuation

In addition to the custody and parenting time issues, Wife argued that the district court erred in valuing husband’s business, and other marital assets. She also took issue with the district court denying her alleged non-marital interest in the marital residence.

As to the business valuation, the district court used a valuation date that differed from all other assets. No specific findings were made as to why the unique evaluation date was fair and equitable. The court of appeals found error.

The takeaway? Be certain, if you use a valuation date that differs from that imposed by the court, to justify the use of that different date and seek specific findings relating thereto.

Rather than dealing with the other property issues raised by Wife on appeal, the court broadly indicated that the district court’s other property division findings were fatally erroneous, in light of the valuation error.

Spousal maintenance

Wife challenged the amount, and duration, of her spousal maintenance award. The court of appeals reversed on a number of bases.

First, it found that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that Wife had the ability to earn the kind of income that the district court imputed. No explanation was offered concerning how Wife would improve her earning capacity during a contemplated three-year time period.

Second, the appellate court took issue with the fact that the lower court failed to calculate Husband’s net income. Instead, the district court relied solely on gross income calculations.

Third, the court of appeals took issue with the fact that the lower court failed to make specific findings concerning the nature of Wife’s monthly living expenses. It also appeared that the district court overstated Husband’s monthly expenses by $2,300.00.

The takeaway? In trying spousal maintenance issues, hire a qualified accountant to offer evidence surrounding cash flow and tax consequences, and a vocational assessor to offer evidence of future employment and earnings. That will (essentially) force the court to analyze those issues in great detail.

Child support and attorney fees

Because the parenting time and spousal maintenance findings were reversed, the court of appeals had no choice but to remand the child support and attorney fee determinations as well.

The takeaway? There are certain facets of family law cases that serve as a foundation for others. Don’t overlook that relationship, and make an adequate record on cornerstone issues.