Blakey v. Jones

• Docket Number: A22-0098
• Decision Date: 01 November 2023
• Parties: Jacqueline Blakey, Appellant, v. Javonda Jones, Respondent, Jerry Blakey, Appellant, Gina Alexander, et al., Respondents
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

1

Jacqueline Blakey, Appellant,

Jerry Blakey, Appellant,
v.
Javonda Jones, Respondent,

Gina Alexander, et al., Respondents

No. A22-0098

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 1, 2023

Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts

Bruce Jones, Elle E. Ottaviani, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Erik F. Hansen, Elizabeth M. Cadem, Burns &Hansen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Christopher M. Banas, Banas Family Law, P.A., Lilydale, Minnesota, for respondents Gina Alexander, et al.

2

SYLLABUS

To perfect their appeal, appellants were not required to serve a notice of appeal on a guardian ad litem who was a party in the third-party custody proceeding in the district court but was discharged before the appeal, because the discharged guardian ad litem was no longer a "party" within the meaning of Rule 103.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure and the guardian ad litem's discharge was not itself the subject of the appeal.

Reversed and remanded; appeal reinstated.

OPINION

ANDERSON, JUSTICE.

The issue presented here is whether Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure requires service of a notice of appeal on a guardian ad litem who was discharged after the district court issued the order from which the appeal was taken. In April 2020, appellants Jacqueline and Jerry Blakey filed a petition for permanent third-party custody of their great niece, K.J. Respondent Javonda Jones, K.J.'s mother, requested that the district court deny the Blakeys' petition. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem. After a hearing and separate paternity proceeding, a referee approved a stipulation of shared joint legal and physical custody of K.J. by Jones and K.J.'s father, and the court later dismissed the Blakeys' petition for third-party custody after an evidentiary hearing. After dismissing the Blakeys' petition for third-party custody, the district court discharged the guardian ad litem, after which the Blakeys appealed the dismissal of their petition. The court of appeals dismissed the Blakeys' appeal for failure

3

to timely serve the guardian ad litem with a notice of appeal under Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Because we conclude that the guardian ad litem was no longer a party to the action once discharged by the district court, and Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, does not require service of a notice of appeal on a former party whose dismissal or discharge is not itself the subject of the appeal, we reverse.

FACTS

K.J. was born to Javonda Jones on January 17, 2017. Andrew Alexander was adjudicated as K.J.'s father in a separate paternity action in 2019.

In April 2020, the Blakeys-K.J.'s paternal great aunt and uncle-filed an ex parte petition for temporary third-party custody of K.J. based on their concern that Jones had neglected K.J.'s special needs and severe medical conditions. The Blakeys named Jones as the sole respondent in the action. The district court granted the Blakeys' ex parte petition, awarded the Blakeys temporary sole physical and legal custody of K.J., and granted Jones parenting time with K.J. twice per week.

The Blakeys filed a petition for permanent third-party custody of K.J. in April 2020 based on the same allegations in their ex parte motion. Alexander and his parents, Larry and Gina Alexander-K.J.'s paternal grandparents-intervened in the action in May 2020. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem in May 2020 to represent the interests of K.J., ordering that the guardian ad litem "shall" be a party. The order naming the guardian ad litem stated that the "appointment in this case shall automatically expire" after 6 months but could be extended. The district court later extended the guardian ad litem's

4

appointment, stating that the "appointment w[ould] expire pursuant to further order of the Court."

In July 2020, after a hearing, the district court granted Jones sole legal and physical custody of K.J., granted the Blakeys unsupervised visitation with K.J. every weekend, and granted both the Blakeys and the Alexanders access to K.J.'s medical records. The district court also determined that there was a sufficient basis to proceed, based on the facts the Blakeys alleged in their custody petition, and determined that a full evidentiary hearing was necessary.

The guardian ad litem issued a report in September 2020 and recommended that Jones retain sole legal and physical custody of K.J. In February 2021, a referee approved a stipulation between the parents modifying custody, after which Jones and K.J.'s father each shared joint legal and physical custody. The guardian ad litem issued an updated report in August 2021 and recommended that K.J.'s parents continue to share joint legal and physical custody, reporting that they were administering K.J.'s medications as prescribed and that K.J.'s medical conditions had greatly improved. Shortly after issuing the updated report, the guardian ad litem informed the parties that she would "no longer be with the Guardian ad Litem Program" when the litigation proceeded to the evidentiary hearing, so her supervisor, Laura Miles, would attend in her place.

An evidentiary hearing took place in September 2021, and all parties were present, including Miles on behalf of the Guardian ad Litem Program. On November 24, 2021, the district court dismissed the Blakeys' petition for third-party custody, concluding that they "failed to establish" any of the statutory factors required to grant third-party custody.

5

In December 2021, the district court discharged the Guardian ad Litem Program and the assigned guardian ad litem. The district court stated that the guardian ad litem had "fulfilled the duties and obligations assigned by the Court."

The Blakeys filed a timely pro se appeal of the dismissal of their custody petition in January 2022. The court of appeals stayed the appeal pending mediation, but mediation failed to resolve the parties' dispute. The stay was lifted in June 2022. On September 8, 2022, the Blakeys, still appearing pro se, served the Guardian ad Litem Program and Miles with a notice of appeal.

The Alexanders moved to dismiss the Blakeys' appeal on the ground that they failed to timely serve the guardian ad litem with the notice of appeal within the 60-day appeal period. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1. The Alexanders argued that the guardian ad litem was an adverse party, and consequently, the guardian ad litem must be served with the notice of appeal under Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. The Blakeys filed a pro se response to the motion to dismiss, arguing that the guardian ad litem was not an adverse party because she served in an advisory role, she did not participate in many hearings, and she did not weigh in on all decisions. The Blakeys conceded, however, that "there are several legal issues identified in [their] appeal that[] specifically relate to the guardian ad litem," such as her failure to certify written reports and fulfill discovery requests, including after the district court ordered her to procure discovery documents.

The court of appeals dismissed the Blakeys' appeal. Blakey v. Jones, No. A22-0098, Order (Minn.App. filed Nov. 1, 2022). The court of appeals explained that, under

6

Rule 103.01 of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, an appeal is made by filing a notice of appeal and serving the notice of appeal on all adverse parties within the appeal period. Blakey, Order at 2. The court of appeals concluded that the guardian ad litem was a "party" because her appointment in this case was mandatory, the district court specifically made the guardian ad litem a party to the litigation, and the district court's discharge of the guardian ad litem after dismissing the Blakeys' petition "d[id] not affect the [guardian ad litem]'s party status on appeal." Id. at 3. The court of appeals also concluded that the guardian ad litem was an adverse party under Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, because she had recommended that K.J.'s parents share custody, which conflicted with the Blakeys' request for third-party custody, and reversing the district court's order would prejudice the position of the guardian ad litem. Id. at 4. Consequently, because it was undisputed that the Blakeys did not serve the guardian ad litem before the appeal period expired and because timely service of a notice of appeal on adverse parties is a jurisdictional requirement, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. Id. at 4-5.

The Blakeys retained counsel and filed a petition for review, and we granted the petition.^[1]

ANALYSIS

At issue here is whether Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure requires service of a notice of appeal on a guardian ad litem who was a party in the district court but was discharged after the district court issued the order from

7

which the appeal was taken. The Blakeys contend that the discharged guardian ad litem is not a "party" for purposes of Rule 103.01, subdivision 1, and that they were not required to serve the guardian ad litem with a notice of appeal. The relevant facts are not in dispute, and this case presents a question regarding the interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, which we review de novo. See Stern 1011 First St. S., LLC v. Gere, 979 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 2022).

A.

We first address an argument by respondents that the Blakeys forfeited their argument before our court. The Alexanders assert that the Blakeys only argued before the court of appeals that the guardian ad litem was not adverse to the Blakeys, but the Blakeys now argue that the guardian ad litem was not a party at the time of their appeal. The Alexanders therefore argue that the Blakeys' argument is forfeited,...