Bock v. Lindquist

• Decision Date: 20 April 1979
• Docket Number: No. 48525.,48525.
• Citation: 278 NW 2d 326
• Parties: Allan C. BOCK, Respondent, v. Randall LINDQUIST, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

278 N.W.2d 326 (1979)

Allan C. BOCK, Respondent, v. Randall LINDQUIST, et al., Appellants.

No. 48525.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 20, 1979.

Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren and James P. Larkin, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Moriarty, Mollerus & Janzen and Louis J. Moriarty, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Jon M. Hopeman, Minneapolis, amicus.

Heard before PETERSON, YETKA, SCOTT, and STONE, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

PETERSON, Justice.

The issue in this case, certified by the trial court as important and doubtful,¹ is whether a right of action by a parent for alienation of a child's affections should be judicially recognized. We hold that the parent has no such cause of action and accordingly reverse the trial court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss.

This litigation arises out of an acrimonious intra-family dispute involving custody of James Carson Whedbee Bock (hereafter Carson), born on April 6, 1965. Allan C. Bock, the plaintiff, adopted Carson in 1973, after his marriage to Carson's mother, Audrey Leigh Holt Whedbee, in 1970. At the time of her marriage to plaintiff, Carson's mother had two children by a former marriage — half siblings of Carson — a daughter, defendant Randall Holt Lindquist, and a son, defendant Clyde Holt III.² Defendant Dale Lindquist is the husband of Randall Holt Lindquist.

Carson's mother brought an action for dissolution of her marriage to plaintiff in 1975 and, with Carson, moved from plaintiff's home and thereafter lived with the Lindquists. The decree of dissolution subsequently entered gave custody of Carson to his mother, and she and Carson continued to live with the Lindquists. Carson's mother, who during these times was suffering from terminal cancer, died on October 3, 1976. At that time, plaintiff agreed Carson should remain with the Lindquists.

The decree of dissolution, in addition to the award of child custody, had ordered plaintiff to pay child support to Carson's mother and $45,000 as a property settlement. Dispute eventually arose among plaintiff and defendants over all these matters. Plaintiff had not paid for child support since the death of Carson's mother and had paid only $5,000 of the $45,000 property settlement. Plaintiff wrote to defendant Holt on February 1, 1977, that if he did pay support for Carson's living and educational expenses, he would want custody of Carson; and he further stated that he felt there was no moral justification for him to pay the balance of the property settlement. Thereafter, the attorney for the estate of Carson's mother requested payment from plaintiff for the balance owed to the estate for the property settlement, followed by a July 5, 1976, letter stating his intention to initiate legal proceedings to collect the debt. In a letter to Randall Lindquist on July 8, 1977, plaintiff indicated that he expected to take custody of Carson in early August 1977. Defendants filed a motion on August 6, 1977, to intervene in the dissolution proceeding to obtain an order granting custody of Carson to the Lindquists; and defendants, on behalf of the estate, undertook to obtain judgment against plaintiff for arrearages in child support and for the $40,000 balance of the property settlement.

Plaintiff thereafter responded with two actions of his own. One of the actions was a successful petition for habeas corpus to obtain custody of Carson. Custody of Carson was placed with plaintiff, where it has remained since that time; and defendants' motion to intervene in the dissolution proceeding was denied. The other action was the present action against defendants for the alleged alienation of Carson's affections, the only subject of this appeal.

We hold, on consideration of sound public policy, that a right of action by a parent for alienation of a child's affections should not be recognized.³ The circumstances under which the right has here been asserted demonstrate the potential for grave abuses, in which a child becomes the object of intra-family controversy and, indeed, a pawn in disputes over monetary matters. In the more usual case of marriage dissolution resulting in deteriorated relationships, a cause of action by one parent against another for alienation of a child's...