§ 588.04

Minnesota Statutes

Source: 2025 Minnesota Statutes. For the official text, see revisor.mn.gov.

Citing Cases (12)

Minnesota Supreme Court

Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota · 2015 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Tatum · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Larson v. Dunn · 1990 2 citations

Conclusion: I agree with the majority that "best interests" of a child should be considered, but not to the exclusion of other principles. The majority does not consider the child's best interests during the seven years Jessica and her father were denied familial privileges, yet the majority now laments that Loree Dunn has not seen her daughter for two years since Jessica was reunited with her father. Dunn does know, however, where Jessica and her former husband are. During those seven years, Larson never knew where his daughter was, whether she was healthy, ill or missed him. Larson was deprived of all custody and visitation, despite having been awarded sole custody by the court. How are the principles of fairness and equity applied by denying this tort and not following the trend in other states? Permitting a cause of action for interference with custody does serve the best interests of the child by encouraging the return of absent children by imposing a civil damages remedy. "A tort suit will be more likely to effect a speedy return of the child; it will result in better cooperation by potential third-party defendants seeking to avoid the suit; potential punitive damages will serve as an additional deterrent; and increased knowledge of a child's whereabouts will result through the broad scope of civil-case discovery." Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d 123, 127 (Iowa 1983) (citing P. Hoff, Interstate Child Custody Disputes and Parental Kidnapping: Policy, Practice and Law, at 14-1 (1982)). The majority does not consider this possibility, but claims the proper remedy lies in the contempt process. Maj op. at 46; see Minn. Stat. ch. 588 (1988). It is inconceivable how service of a contempt order could ever be accomplished when the noncustodial parent, like Dunn in this case, "disappears." See Minn. Stat. §§ 588.04; 588.07 (contemplating the service of arrest warrant or order to show cause on contemptor). The majority decries further that "[i]t is clear that this tort would be used as a new weapon" in dissolution cases. Id. at 46. As the statistics and the present case confirm, it is parental child kidnappings and accusations of sexual abuse that have become the "new weapons" in dissolution cases. There are and always have been remedies available to Dunn within the court system, yet she pursued none of them. Instead, Loree Dunn fled the state with Jessica, brazenly defying a court determination of the child's best interests. If one principle stands paramount in our system of jurisprudence, it is that no one person, mother, father, president or pauper stands *53 above the law. In a case as this, the best interests of the child must be considered together with respect for our legal system. I would affirm the court of appeals panel. YETKA, Justice (dissenting). I join in the dissent of Chief Justice Popovich. KELLY, Justice (dissenting). I join in the dissent of Chief Justice Popovich. NOTES [1] The other named parties were not served and have not appeared. Apparently, Inga Rigenhagen is deceased and the whereabouts of the other parties is unknown. [2] The first appeal attempt failed since the trial court's order dismissed only the Rigenhagens and Olson, and other parties to the complaint remained. The parties then stipulated to entry of final judgment for purposes of perfecting an appeal, and it was so ordered on May 25, 1989. At the same time, Larson withdrew his motion for default judgment against Dunn. [3] Twenty-one jurisdictions have ruled on this issue. Of these rulings, only eleven are decisions of state supreme courts. D & D Fuller CATV Const. v. Pace, 780 P.2d 520 (Colo.1989); Shields v. Martin, 109 Idaho 132, 706 P.2d 21 (Idaho 1985); Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1983); Plante v. Engel, 124 N.H. 213, 469 A.2d 1299 (1983); McBride v. Magnuson, 282 Or. 433, 578 P.2d 1259 (1978); Bedard v. Notre Dame Hospital, 89 R.I. 195, 151 A.2d 690 (1959); Brown v. Brown, 338 Mich. 492, 61 N.W.2d 656 (1953) (cert. denied); Montgomery v. Crum, 199 Ind. 660, 161 N.E. 251 (1928) (by implication); Howell v. Howell, 162 N.C. 283, 78 S.E. 222 (1913); Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299 (1877); Silcott v. Oglesby, 721 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.1986) (stepfather sued maternal grandfather; court applied Restatement § 700 tort).

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

In re the Matter of: Eric Joseph Vacko v. Teri Ann Shults · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re: The Burial of Irina Kurdyumova (Deceased). · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re the Marriage of: Tamara Eileen Goemaat v. Andrew Joel Goemaat · 2015 1 citation

Citing Cases (12)

Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Court of Appeals

U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota