Court of Appeals Digest: Oct. 28, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Unpublished

Civil Commitment

Mentally Ill; Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged the District Court's orders committing her as mentally ill and authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medications. The Court of Appeals concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the commitment, noting that appellant had a substantial psychiatric disorder affecting her thought and causing faulty perceptions, and there was a substantial risk of physical harm due to her disorder. Affirmed.

A19-0875 In re Civil Commitment of Sharp (Hennepin County)

Costs

Findings

In this appeal involving breach-of-contract claims arising out of the construction of a senior living center, appellant challenged the District Court's award of costs and disbursements. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the District Court did not provide its explanation for the costs and disbursements, it lacked the detail necessary to review the award and that remand was required for additional findings. Reversed and remanded.

A19-0070 Weitz Co. v. Zitting Bros. Constr., Inc. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Third Parties

In their appeal from the District Court's order dismissing their petition for third-party custody and their alternative request for grandparent visitation, appellants argued that the District Court erred in dismissing their petition for third-party custody because of the res judicata effect of an earlier dismissal of a similar petition. They also argued that the District Court abused its discretion in finding they lacked standing under the third-party custody statute and misapplied the grandparent-visitation statute. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred in giving res judicata effect to the earlier dismissal of appellants' first petition, however, appellants' pleadings failed to allege sufficient facts to show any of the three requirements were present to make them interested third parties under the third-party custody statute. Affirmed.

A19-0067 Larsen v. Cross (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant father challenged the termination of his parental rights, arguing that the record did not show that (1) he failed to satisfy his parental duties, (2) the county's reasonable efforts failed to reunite the family, and (3) termination was in the child's best interests. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although appellant should not have ignored the requirements of the case plan because they were not tailored to his specific circumstances, his lack of full compliance was not clear and convincing evidence that he failed to satisfy his parental duties. Furthermore, the county's reunification efforts addressed concerns with mother which were irrelevant to appellant and were thus not reasonable. Reversed.

A19-0768 In re Welfare of Children of A.A.L. (Itasca County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant challenged the termination of her parental rights to her two youngest children, arguing that the District Court (1) abused its discretion by finding that respondent county proved statutory grounds for termination, (2) erred by finding that the county made reasonable efforts toward reunification, and (3) abused its discretion by finding that it is in the...