Modern Family: Competency called into question in stipulated OFP

On Feb. 7, the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the issue of competency in the context of an order for protection proceeding. The opinion, Martin v. Martin, No. A21-0612, 2022 WL 351108 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2022) provides a firm reminder that special steps must be taken in actions involving a mentally ill party.

In Martin, Wife petitioned for an order for protection against Husband. At the time, the parties were involved in an action to dissolve their marriage.

In her petition, Wife alleged a history of serious physical and emotional abuse by Husband. Wife also claimed Husband had recently been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but was not taking his prescribed medication.

In addition to the typical “no contact” provisions, Wife sought an OFP that included provisions surrounding insurance coverage, temporary child support, temporary use and possession of the marital residence and an award of temporary custody of the parties’ children.

The district court granted Wife an emergency ex parte OFP and scheduled an evidentiary hearing.

At the hearing, Wife was represented by counsel. Husband proceeded pro se. The district court recognized Husband was attending the hearing, via video conference, “from a facility.”

Wife’s attorney noted there was a civil commitment action pending against Husband and that Husband was unable to demonstrate “stability.” Husband confirmed he had been in treatment for about one week, was on medication for his mental health, and had restricted use of a phone at the treatment center.

The district court inquired about Husband’s mental health and encouraged him to continue with his course of care.

As the hearing began, the district court suggested that it issue an OFP without findings and asked Husband if he would be agreeable. Husband indicated the allegations raised in Wife’s petition were false. The district court went on to explain the nature of an order without findings.

Husband agreed to the issuance of the OFP without findings. Thereafter, the parties discussed insurance, parenting time and support.

Father expressed he wished to exercise time with the parties’ children and that he would “fight for full custody.” Mother opposed Father’s request.

The parties agreed to the appointment of a guardian ad litem and await input from the guardian before readdressing Husband’s request for parenting time.

The parties could not agree on an award of temporary child support. Consequently, the district court took testimony concerning the parties’ financial circumstances.

The district court granted a “purportedly stipulated OFP” in favor of Mother and the children. Said order granted Mother sole physical custody of the children and an award of basic child support and child-care support in her favor.

The court also ordered Father to continue to insure all members of the family and awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital residence to Mother.

Following the issuance of the OFP, Father retained counsel. Father’s lawyer sought a motion for a new trial, arguing that Father “lacked the capacity to enter into” the stipulated OFP.

The district court denied Father’s motion. Father appealed.

Judge Tracy M. Smith noted that Father never raised “competency” as an issue at the hearing before the district court and, therefore, the district court never addressed it.

In theory, Husband’s appeal was improper because an issue raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial is “too late.”

Still, Judge Smith suggested that appellate courts can consider issues not raised in the district court “as the interest of justice may require.” She cited three bases for the Court of Appeals to address Husband’s competency.

First, Judge Smith reiterated that the record before the district court reflected “many indicators” that, at the time of the OFP hearing, Husband was experiencing a “severe mental-health crisis.”

Second, Judge Smith opined that “a lack of competence to enter a stipulation can ‘under the peculiar facts of [a] case,’ amount to a fraud upon the court” — sufficient to reopen a stipulated ruling.

Third, Judge Smith noted that while stipulations in family matters are treated as contracts, an OFP can significantly impact the interests of children that are “nonbargainable.”

As to the competency issue itself, the Court of Appeals determined that the district court had an obligation to conduct an inquiry into Husband’s competence to enter into a stipulated order for protection.

Judge Smith suggested that “competency” requires a person to understand the “nature and effect” of their actions when executing a contract.

It appeared to the court that the district court, while no doubt acting with good intentions, seemed to guide Husband along a path to an agreement. That assistance made it unclear to the appellate court if Husband “truly consented” to the stipulated OFP.

Citing the Toughill decision at 609 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000), the Court of Appeals noted that a district court, generally, “cannot, by judicial fiat, impose conditions on the parties to which they did not stipulate and thereby deprive the parties of their day in court.”

Husband was not represented by counsel. Husband seemed to merely go along with the district court’s suggestions, when the district court had a “heightened duty” to ensure he was competent to proceed. In not doing so, the Court of Appeals determined, the district court abused its discretion, and its ruling was reversed.

In light of the district court’s abuse of discretion in issuing the order for protection, the Court of Appeals also remanded on the issue of child support. Judge Smith noted that the district court “improperly relied on [Husband’s] testimony at the hearing given his mental illness and incapacity.”

It’s interesting that Judge Smith extended herself to find not only that the district court failed to inquire as to competency, but to also hold that he was, in fact, incompetent.

It is well known that the best family lawyers and judges work creatively to resolve complex and emotional disputes short of a trial. Unfortunately, it appears the district court took matters a bit too far in this instance.

Sometimes, one type of case will take precedence over proceeding with another. For example, family court files must trail an active protective services action.

In this case, the safe bet would have involved continuing the OFP matter pending conclusion of Husband’s treatment. I suspect the completion of treatment was a condition of early resolution in the civil commitment file.

Still, the district court must operate under the severe time constraints outlined in the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act. Evidentiary hearings are required to take place within a matter of days following the issuance of an ex parte order for protection.

Perhaps it is time to reexamine the timing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, Subd. 5, to afford the court and litigants additional time to proceed in cases involving a litigant undergoing in-patient treatment.

Jason Brown is a shareholder in the family law department at Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected].