Often ex rel. Minor Children v. Dornquast
| Decision Date | 03 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20-0217 |
| Parties | In the Matter of: Holly Elizabeth Often, o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, v. Nathan Marsh Dornquast, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Ramsey County District Court
Hennepin County District Court
Eva F. Wailes, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Eric C. Nelson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant father challenges the district court's order granting the respondent mother's petition for an order for protection (OFP) on behalf of their two daughters. Appellant argues that the district court erred by: (1) finding that his use of corporal punishment constituted domestic assault against his daughters, (2) limiting evidence at the OFP hearing of the daughters' past misbehavior, and (3) issuing the OFP. For the first time on appeal, appellant also argues that the district court violated his due process rights. We affirm because the district court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion.
The facts are mostly undisputed. Appellant Nathan Dornquast and respondent Holly Often divorced in 2008 and thereafter shared legal and physical custody of their two daughters. Sometime in 2018, Dornquast became concerned about the daughters' alleged drug use. During the fall of 2019, he was also concerned that the daughters were missing school, their grades were declining, and one daughter had been caught with drug paraphernalia in her backpack. Dornquast attempted various disciplinary measures, including grounding the daughters and restricting visits with their friends.
On December 2, 2019, the daughters were together in a room at Dornquast's house, when he knocked on the door to ask a question. Upon opening the door, Dornquast smelled marijuana and saw a vape charger. The daughters denied knowing anything about the vape charger. Dornquast testified at the OFP hearing that he spent 15 minutes "begging" them to confess then warned:
Dornquast instructed the daughters to dress in underwear and meet him in the guest bedroom. He testified to the district court that he "whacked" his hand with the belt a few times, "making sure they could hear it" and "trying to find some point where it could stingwithout really hurting." He did not want to "get laughed at" but also wanted to "cause a sting with a snap."
Dornquast instructed his daughters to bend over the bed. He testified that he "gave them each a little whack with the belt." The older daughter told the younger daughter to "come clean," and Dornquast proceeded to "whack" the younger daughter again, ultimately hitting her with the belt a total of four to five times. During the incident, the daughters felt "scared." The belt left swollen red lines across each daughter's behind, which developed into bruises over the following days.
The younger daughter then admitted that the vape charger belonged to her, and Dornquast found additional vaping paraphernalia in her backpack. He told the younger daughter to stand on the bed, photographed the marks on her behind, and forwarded the photograph by text to Often. He admits that he then "whacked" the younger daughter on the face.
Often moved the district court for an OFP on behalf of her daughters. At the evidentiary hearing, Dornquast argued that his use of force was a justifiable disciplinary measure. The district court disagreed, finding that Dornquast had "committed acts of domestic violence against [both of the daughters]." The district court explained:
It is clear both from the testimony of the girls, which I find to be completely credible, as well as the photographic evidence that Mr. Dornquast in striking the children with a leather belt went well beyond any form of corporal punishment that is allowed either by statute or case law . . . causing injury to both girls. There [are] visible welts, raised skin, swelling, and bruising on the site of the injuries . . . . That is not discipline, that is abuse.
The district court "did not find [Dornquast's] description of his use of force to be credible." The district court further found "that both of the girls are of slight stature" and the strikes they received went beyond "moderate discipline."
Based on its findings, the district court issued an OFP for two years. The OFP prohibited Dornquast from contact with either daughter except, upon completion of parenting education, weekly four-hour supervised visits. At the hearing, when Dornquast's attorney stated that "whatever is ordered here today on a temporary basis could be modified in family court," the district court responded affirmatively. Dornquast did not object to the parameters of the district court's order at the hearing or request a more lenient order, such as a reduced length of time that the OFP would remain in effect. Dornquast now appeals the OFP.
Given the nature of Dornquast's arguments, we first emphasize the principles that govern our review. As an appellate court, our purpose is to correct errors, not retry cases. See Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 68 n.2 (Minn. 1979) (). We do not reweigh the evidence or find new facts. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
Dornquast's primary argument is that his use of force was reasonable and, therefore, the district court's finding of domestic abuse was clearly erroneous. The findingsunderlying a decision to issue an OFP are reviewed for clear error. Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004). We view the record in the light most favorable to the findings and will reverse those findings only if "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009). We give considerable deference to the district court's findings on witness credibility. In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996).
The Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act provides that an OFP may be issued if domestic abuse has occurred. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4 (2018). "Domestic abuse" includes "physical harm, bodily injury, or assault," as well as "the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault." Id., subd. 2(a) (2018). Ample caselaw has affirmed findings of domestic abuse on facts similar to those presented by this record. See Aljubailah ex rel. A.M.J. v. James, 903 N.W.2d 638, 642-43 (Minn. App. 2017) (); Oberg v. Bradley, 868 N.W.2d 62, 63, 66 (Minn. App. 2015) (); Gada, 684 N.W.2d at 515 ().
It is undisputed that Dornquast struck both of his daughters with a leather belt, leaving visible welts, raised skin, and swelling. Both daughters testified that they felt "scared" during the incident. Dornquast admitted that he wanted the belt to "sting." Although he testified that he did not intend for his actions to cause injury, the district courtdid not find this testimony to be credible. Dornquast has not shown that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
Dornquast argues that he is entitled to a defense of the authorized use of force provided in the criminal code. Minnesota criminal statutes state that "reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another . . . when used by a parent . . . of a child . . . in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child." Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(6) (2018). But the district court expressly found that Dornquast's use of force was unreasonable.1 The district court expressly found that: (1) Dornquast's actions were "not justified as reasonable physical discipline," (2) the "force used was not moderate but was rather excessive," (3) his actions "went well beyond any form of corporal punishment that is allowed either by statute or case law," and (4) such actions constitute abuse, not discipline. The district court found that Dornquast's use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances, and this finding is supported by the record.
Dornquast argues that the district court should not have limited evidence of the daughters' past misbehavior, contending that such evidence is relevant to the issue ofwhether his use of force was reasonable. He also raised this objection at the evidentiary hearing.
"District courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence on a number of grounds, including relevance." Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 788 (Minn. 2014). "[T]his court will not disturb an evidentiary ruling unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or is an abuse of that discretion." Aljubailah ex rel. A. M. J., 903 N.W.2d at 644.
The district court ruled: Accordingly, the district court excluded school attendance records and testimony that one of the daughters had stolen the keys to her grandmother's condominium sometime in early 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial