Opinion
A22-1577
08-21-2023
Noah Joseph Bongard, petitioner, Respondent, v. Crystal Lee Truchinski, Appellant, County of Anoka, Intervenor.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-FA-14-822
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Gaitas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Susan L. Segal Chief Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this appeal, appellant-mother Crystal Lee Truchinski challenges the denial of her motion to hold respondent-father Noah Joseph Bongard in constructive civil contempt for his alleged failure to allow mother unsupervised parenting time, and the denial of her motion to modify parenting time. Mother and father are the parents of one joint child, H.B., born in 2012. The parties never married. After they separated in 2014, father petitioned to establish custody and parenting time. The district court issued a stipulated order in 2015 that granted the parties joint legal custody and granted mother sole physical custody of H.B., subject to father's scheduled parenting time. The 2015 order also required the parties to participate in mediation to resolve nonemergency parenting disagreements prior to moving the court for relief.
2. In 2019, after father moved to be close to H.B.'s school, the district court granted father's motion to increase father's parenting time to a 50-50 schedule. The district court's order, however, provided that mother would retain sole physical custody and primary residence.
3. In October 2020, father filed an emergency ex parte motion to limit mother's parenting time to supervised parenting time and to enjoin mother from removing H.B. from the Twin Cities metropolitan area, alleging that mother planned to move H.B. out of state without notifying father or the district court. Father averred that he had received information from mother's sister regarding mother's plan to move from Minnesota with her husband, her other child, and H.B., and live "off grid" in their recreational vehicle (RV). Father hired a private investigator to confirm the information from mother's sister. The investigator observed a large RV and trailer at mother's home, and mother's husband and other child loading boxes into the trailer. The district court granted father's ex parte motion and scheduled an emergency hearing.
4. Following the emergency hearing, the district court issued an order prohibiting mother from moving H.B. out of state and requiring that mother's time with H.B. be supervised. The district court noted that mother "gave conflicting answers" regarding "her actions of loading the RV with food and supplies for an extended period of time" and that the court "remain[ed] concerned that [mother] is planning an immediate move of [H.B.] out of the State of Minnesota, which would harm [H.B.]." Twelve days after the hearing-and without informing H.B. or father-mother moved to Missouri with her husband and other child.
5. Approximately two weeks after she moved, mother filed a motion to move H.B. to Missouri. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an order in September 2021 denying mother's motion. The September 2021 order granted temporary physical custody of H.B. to father and required mother's parenting time to be supervised. The order provided that mother could have unsupervised parenting time under the following conditions:
4. [Mother] will be entitled to unsupervised visits in the State of Minnesota only if [she] provides [father] with information where [H.B.] will be staying in Minnesota and where [mother] lives in Missouri.
....
7. The Court will consider ordering extended parenting time outside of Minnesota only if [mother] discloses where [H.B.] will be living and/or staying when out of the State of Minnesota and allows [father] to investigate.
6. In May 2022, mother filed a motion requesting that the district court find father in constructive civil contempt for failing to allow mother to have unsupervised parenting time. Mother alleged that she had provided father her address in Nixa, Missouri, as required by paragraph four of the September 2021 order, but that father claimed her disclosure was inadequate and denied her unsupervised visits. Mother also moved for increased parenting time, requesting unsupervised visits in Minnesota during the school year and in Missouri during H.B.'s school breaks.
7. The district court held a hearing on mother's motion. Mother testified that she resides in a home in Nixa, Missouri, and that she had provided the address of the home to father. Mother said that her RV is "by the Campground, Lake of the Ozarks." She acknowledged spending time in the RV but stated that her primary residence is at the address in Nixa.
8. The district court denied mother's request to hold father in constructive civil contempt, finding that father had not violated paragraph four of the September 2021 order. The court explained:
[Mother] must inform [father] where [H.B.] will be staying in Minnesota and where [mother] lives in Missouri to be entitled to unsupervised parenting time in Minnesota. [Mother] has not done so. At the hearing she disclosed a[n] RV park where she lives in her RV, but not an address. She has insisted that she lives in a rented basement of a home in Nixa, Missouri and is therefore not entitled to [unsupervised] parenting time.
9. The district court also denied mother's motion to modify parenting time. The court applied Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (2022), which governs modifications to custody orders and parenting plans, and held that mother's request was premature because section 518.18(b) provides that a party may not move to modify a custody order or parenting plan within two years following a previous modification hearing, subject to several exceptions.
10. In our analysis, we first address mother's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion to hold father in constructive civil contempt. Mother asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding that she had failed to provide father with her Missouri address as required in paragraph four of the September 2021 order. Mother argues that she complied with paragraph four and that father thus violated the order by denying mother unsupervised parenting time in Minnesota.
11. Constructive civil contempt-contempt that does not occur "in the immediate presence of the court, and of which [the court] has no personal knowledge"- includes "disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court." Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 3 (2022).
12. A civil-contempt order is intended to be "remedial rather than punitive because its purpose is to coerce compliance with [a court] order, not to vindicate the authority of the court." Mower Cnty. Hum. Servs. ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Minn. 1996); see also Hopp v. Hopp, 156 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Minn. 1968) (noting that the purpose of a civil-contempt proceeding is to secure compliance with an order from the district court). Contempt is an extreme remedy that is to be exercised with caution. Hampton v. Hampton, 229 N.W.2d 139, 140-41 (Minn. 1975). We review the district court's decision to hold a party in civil contempt for an abuse of discretion and reverse the district court's factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. See Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom, 925 N.W.2d 233, 239 (Minn. 2019); Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d at 222.
13. We reject mother's argument for several reasons. First, the district court's finding that mother failed to satisfy the prerequisites for the grant of unsupervised visits, as set out in paragraph four, is supported in the record. In her messages to father prior to the contempt hearing, mother merely provided "[t]he Nixa address." She also provided no address for the location of the site where the RV was located.
14. Second, the district court's conclusion that father did not violate the September 2021 order is based on the district court's assessment of mother's credibility, and we defer to such assessments. See In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996) ("Considerable deference is due to the district court's decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses."). The district court noted that mother "has insisted that she lives in a rented basement of a home in Nixa, Missouri." Later in its order, the district court wrote: "[Father] remains justifiably skeptical of the prospect of [mother] presenting a home as hers which is not actually where she lives." The district court's knowledge of the history of the case-including father's previous allegations that mother was going to go "off grid" in the RV and mother's subsequent sudden move to Missouri-supports the district court's credibility determination. See In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 224 (Minn. 2021) ("A factfinder is not required to accept even uncontradicted testimony if improbable or if surrounding facts and circumstances afford reasonable grounds for doubting its credibility." (quotation omitted)).
15. Finally, even if the district court erred in its determination that father did not violate paragraph four of its prior order, the district court would not be required to hold father in contempt of court. A contempt order is an "extreme remedy" that "must be exercised with great prudence," and the district court is not compelled to find a party in contempt if the court does not deem such a finding necessary to secure compliance with its order. Hampton, 229 N.W.2d at 140-41. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of mother's contempt motion.
16. We now turn to mother's second argument on appeal, her challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for unsupervised parenting time in Minnesota during the school year and in Missouri during school breaks. The district court has broad discretion to decide parenting-time questions, and we review a district court's decision whether to modify parenting time for an abuse of that discretion. Hansen v. Todnem, 908 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 2018). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record." Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022) (quotation omitted).
17. As an initial matter, we agree that the district court applied the incorrect statutory standard to mother's parenting-time motion. The district court evaluated mother's motion under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(b), which provides that a party may not move to modify a custody order or parenting plan within two years following a previous modification hearing, subject to several exceptions. This statute is not applicable because mother's motion was not to modify a custody order-it was a motion to obtain unsupervised parenting time-and the parties do not have a "parenting plan." See Minn. Stat. § 518.1705 (2022) (defining and providing requirements for "parenting plans").
18. Father acknowledges that the district court erred in its application of Minn. Stat. § 518.18 but contends that the error is harmless because the district court's denial of mother's motion is justified on other grounds. We agree. See Katz v. Katz, 408 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Minn. 1987) (stating that an appellate court "will not reverse a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons"); In re Welfare of Child of A.H., 879 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn.App. 2016) (applying this aspect of Katz).
19. The September 2021 order provided that "[t]he Court will consider ordering extended parenting time outside of Minnesota only if [mother] discloses where [H.B.] will be living and/or staying when out of the State of Minnesota and allows [father] to investigate." As discussed above, the district court concluded that mother had not provided sufficient, credible residence information to obtain unsupervised parenting time, and father had not had the opportunity to investigate mother's Missouri residence. Indeed, in the same motion in which she requested the expanded parenting time, mother sought to have the district court limit father's access to her alleged residence, which would have prevented father from verifying the residence.
20. Moreover, the district court's order did not prohibit mother from having unsupervised parenting time, it merely found that mother had not complied with the requirements of the September 2021 order to be entitled to such time. For these reasons, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying mother's motion for unsupervised parenting time.
Father also contends that the denial of mother's motion was warranted because mother failed to seek a mediated resolution of the parenting-time dispute prior to bringing her motion, as required by the 2015 order. Father asserted this issue before the district court, but the district court implicitly waived the mediation requirement-an action that is within the district court's discretion-by ruling on the merits of the motion. We therefore decline to consider that argument on appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.