Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
| Citation | 311 Minn. 76,249 N.W.2d 168 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46091,46091 |
| Parties | William F. ROSENFELD, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Helen R. ROSENFELD, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court
The family court judge's decision to reverse the referee's determination and award custody of the parties' daughter to respondent-mother was an informed and independent decision supported by adequate written findings and was not an abuse of discretion.
Berde, Leonard & Weinblatt, Richard E. Leonard and Alan W. Weinblatt, St. Paul, for appellant.
William F. Messinger and Rebecca A. Knittle, Mineapolis, for respondent.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, MacLAUGHLIN, and MARSDEN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court Division of the Hennepin County District Court which affirmed its previous order reversing the custody determination of a family court referee and awarding the permanent custody of the parties' 3-year-old daughter to respondent-mother. 1 Because the family court's decision to reverse the referee's determination was an informed and independent decision supported by adequate written findings and was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Appellant, William F. Rosenfeld, and respondent, Helen R. Rosenfeld, were married in 1967, and their daughter, Tasya Rosenfeld, was born on December 2, 1971. Appellant and respondent separated in August 1973 pursuant to a written separation agreement which provided for equally divided custody of their daughter Tasya. Because of the separation respondent moved into a one-bedroom apartment where she resided for approximately 10 months. Thereafter, in June 1974, respondent moved into a house on Park Avenue in Minneapolis which she shared with another woman, Fluffy Golod, and Golod's 5-year-old daughter and 21-year-old brother. During this time respondent was enrolled as a graduate student working for a master's degree in American Studies at the University of Minnesota and had custody of Tasya approximately 50 percent of the time.
On July 31, 1974, appellant commenced an action for dissolution of the marriage. By stipulation between the parties, a custody hearing was scheduled before a family court referee. It was stipulated that the hearing was not to operate as a waiver of the parties' rights to a full review of the custody issue by the family court judge. On February 5, 1975, the referee entered an order awarding custody of Tasya to appellant. The basis for the referee's custody decision was that the life style of appellant would provide a 'more stable environment' for Tasya than the 'free style living with multiple adult control of the home' environment that respondent provided.
Respondent's notice of review of the referee's order was heard before the family court judge on April 28, 1975. At this hearing the family court judge was informed that respondent had moved into her own apartment with Tasya, and that Fluffy Golod and her daughter now lived in a separate apartment directly above respondent. After reviewing the record, interviewing the parties, and listening to arguments of counsel, the family court judge found that 'there is nothing in the lifestyle of either parent which would be detrimental to raising the child' and that 'the present best interests of the child will best be served by being in the custody of the mother.' Appellant's motions for amended findings, a new trial, and a stay of execution of the custody order were denied, and this appeal followed.
On November 5, 1975, this court denied appellant's motion to accelerate this appeal, but on December 11, 1975, remanded the matter to the trial court for 'consideration of an appropriate motion by (appellant) based upon additional evidence.' On January 29 and 30, 1976, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which appellant introduced evidence showing that, subsequent to the family court's order, respondent had been arrested while in Tasya's presence, and convicted for shoplifting. Appellant also introduced evidence that Tasya had been briefly hospitalized because of an accidental exposure to carbon monoxide fumes while riding in an automobile with respondent and that Tasya had cried on two occasions when appellant brought her back from visitation. The trial court found that these new facts did not constitute 'such a sufficient change of circumstances * * * as to warrant a change of custody.'
The issues raised on this appeal are:
(1) Whether the family court judge erred by reversing the family court referee without determining that his findings were clearly erroneous;
(2) whether the family court judge erred by failing to make specific findings of fact on each statutory factor listed in Minn.St. 518.17, subd. 1; and
(3) whether the family court judge abused her discretion by awarding custody of Tasya to respondent.
1. Appellant first argues that the family court judge must accept the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. The same argument was presented to this court in LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 176, 207 N.W.2d 291, 293 (1973), where we stated:
.
We recently reconsidered and fully discussed the holding in LaBelle and the issue of whether a family court judge should be bound to the findings of a referee. In Peterson v. Peterson, Minn., 242 N.W.2d 88, 93 (1976), we adhered to the rule established in LaBelle, specifically holding:
(Italics supplied.)
In the instant case it is clear that the family court judge has made an informed and independent decision on the custody issue. The record discloses that the family court judge carefully examined the transcript, questioned the parties, and listened to counsel's arguments before making the decision. Indeed, the family court judge stated that she had 'spent probably more time in thinking about this particular case (than any other case).' Thus, since she made an informed and independent decision the family court judge's action is consistent with our holdings in LaBelle and Peterson.
2. Appellant next argues that the trial court's findings of fact in the instant case are statutorily insufficient to support an award of custody. Minn.St. 518.17, subd. 2, provides in part:
(Italics supplied.)
Minn.St. 518.17, subd. 1, provides:
'* * * '(T)he best interest of the children' means the Sum total of the following factors to be considered and evaluated by the court:
'(a) The love, affection and other emotional ties existing between the competing parties and the child;
'(b) The capacity and disposition of competing parties to give the child love, affection and guidance and continuation of the educating and raising of the child in its religion or creed, if any, or culture;
'(c) The capacity and disposition of competing parties to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in lieu of medical care, and other material needs;
'(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity '(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home;
'(f) The cultural background of the child;
'(g) The mental and physical health of the competing parties;
'(h) The home, school and community record of the child;
'(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference;
'(j) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.' (Italics supplied.)
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Civil Commitment of Ince
...facts without a jury, “the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law”); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 82, 249 N.W.2d 168, 171 (1976) (stating that findings of fact will “assure consideration of the statutory factors ... facilitate appellate rev......
-
MacCormack v. MacCormack
...relevant, in reaching its decision.’ ” Harris v. Harris, 149 Vt. 410, 414, 546 A.2d 208, 212 (1988) (quoting Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 249 N.W.2d 168, 171–72 (1976) ). Although we have not required that the trial court make its findings in a specific form, we have observed “that......
-
Maxfield v. Maxfield
...desirability of maintaining continuity" and "the mental and physical health of all individuals involved." Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 81, 249 N.W.2d 168, 170-71 (1976). Usually this relationship "should not be disrupted without strong reasons * * *." Berndt, 292 N.W.2d at 2. Here ......
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, C9-85-257
...reflect that the trial court has taken the relevant factors into consideration in reaching its decision. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 83, 249 N.W.2d 168, 171-72 (1976). This is demonstrated by the findings here, and those findings are adequately sustained by competent Realizing, ho......