Larson v. Marohn

• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Docket Number: A22-0092
• Parties: In the Matter of: Kathryn Marie Larson, on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent, v. Keith Norman Marohn, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

In the Matter of: Kathryn Marie Larson, on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner, Respondent,
v.
Keith Norman Marohn, Appellant.

No. A22-0092

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

September 6, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Isanti County District Court File No. 30-FA-19-139

Leigh J. Klaenhammer, Hennek Klaenhammer Law, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota (for respondent)

Keith Norman Marohn, North Branch, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.

REYES, Judge

Self-represented appellant challenges the district court's extension of an order for protection (OFP) against him, arguing that (1) Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2020) is an unconstitutional bill of attainder; (2) he is entitled to a retraction of defective service by publication; (3) the district court erred by holding an unscheduled evidentiary hearing

1

before deciding his motion for in-camera review of minor child E.A.M.'s counseling records; (4) the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay statements into evidence; and (5) the district court's findings are unsupported by the record. We affirm.

FACTS

In 2019, respondent Kathryn Marie Larson petitioned on behalf of minor child E.A.M. for an OFP against E.A.M.'s father, appellant Keith Norman Marohn. Larson alleged that Marohn became frustrated with E.A.M. for playing with her phone and grabbed E.A.M.'s arm, forcibly took the phone, kicked her knee, and pulled her upstairs while holding her by her wrists. In September 2019, the district court found that Marohn committed acts of domestic abuse against E.A.M. and issued a two-year OFP (the 2019 OFP). The 2019 OFP required Marohn to participate in "[f]amily therapy with [therapist]." It also prohibited Marohn from having contact with E.A.M., with one exception: "E.A.M.[] and [Marohn] may participate in family therapy with [therapist]." Marohn appealed. We affirmed the district court. Larson v. Marohn, No. A19-1831, 2020 WL 3494306, at *1 (Minn.App. June 29, 2020).

In August 2021, Larson, on behalf of E.A.M., petitioned to extend the 2019 OFP, alleging that: (1) Marohn violated the 2019 OFP and (2) E.A.M. is reasonably in fear of physical harm from Marohn. The district court scheduled a hearing for September 1, 2021. Isanti County Sheriff's Office attempted to serve Marohn with notice of the hearing but failed because Marohn did not live at the address Larson provided. The district court continued the OFP-extension hearing until October 18 to allow Larson to serve Marohn by

2

publication. Publication of a notice of the proceeding in a local newspaper occurred on September 23.

On September 24, 2021, an Isanti County deputy served Marohn with the notice of hearing and OFP-extension petition. Shortly after, Marohn submitted requests to the district court for subpoenas for (1) Isanti County Family Services records regarding the events underlying the 2019 OFP and (2) E.A.M.'s therapy records. The district court granted Marohn's subpoena requests. The agency providing E.A.M.'s therapy then wrote to the district court, requesting that it quash the subpoena for E.A.M.'s therapy records. In response, Marohn moved the district court to compel production of E.A.M.'s therapy records and complete an in-camera review of those records "for issues relat[ing] to the severity and causes of [E.A.M.'s] fear over the past 48 months."

Both Larson and Marohn appeared at the October 18, 2021 hearing.^[1] Because Larson had not received Marohn's motion, the district court again continued the hearing to allow Marohn to refile and properly serve his motion. The district court set the next hearing for November 24, 2021, to address Marohn's motion for in-camera review. It also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to prepare a report with a recommendation as to whether the OFP should be extended. Marohn then refiled and served his motion. He also asked the district court to "[p]ublish a full retraction of the notice of publication."

At the November 24, 2021 hearing, the district court noted that Marohn's motion to obtain E.A.M.'s counseling records was set for hearing but directed the parties to first

3

address whether Marohn violated the 2019 OFP. Marohn objected, but the district court confirmed that it would first address whether Marohn violated the 2019 OFP. Larson then testified to her understanding that Marohn had not attended any therapy. When the district court asked Marohn if he wanted to offer any evidence on whether he participated in therapy, Marohn said that he did not.

The district court next allowed Marohn to argue his motion for in-camera review of E.A.M.'s counseling records. Then, over Marohn's objection, the district court accepted the GAL's report into evidence and allowed the GAL to testify. The GAL recommended extending the OFP. After the GAL testified, the district court asked if the parties had any other witnesses. Marohn said that he needed to subpoena his witnesses to testify but did not clarify which witnesses he intended to call or explicitly ask the district court to continue the hearing. The district court then granted the OFP extension.

In its subsequent order, the district court noted that Marohn refused to testify that he complied with the prior OFP by participating in the required counseling, Larson testified that she received no notice that Marohn wanted to attend therapy with E.A.M., and the GAL testified that she could find no evidence that Marohn attempted to participate in family therapy. It found "that [Marohn] failed to comply with the [OFP] in that he failed to participate in therapy with [therapist]." It also found, based on the GAL's report and testimony, that E.A.M. is still in reasonable fear of physical harm from Marohn. It extended the OFP until May 2023. The OFP prohibits Marohn from contacting E.A.M.

4

but permits him to attend family therapy with E.A.M. after engaging individually in family therapy. This appeal follows.^[2]

DECISION

I. Marohn's constitutional challenge to Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 is not properly before this court.

Marohn first argues that Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and that he sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal. We decline to review his claim because it is not properly before us.

Although courts afford some leeway to self-represented parties, they "are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules." Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.App. 2001). On appeal, we generally consider "only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by" the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted); see also Constans v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 835 N.W.2d 518,...