Welfare of J.W., Matter of

Citation391 N.W.2d 791
Decision Date08 August 1986
Docket NumberNos. C8-85-119,C9-85-131,s. C8-85-119
PartiesIn the Matter of the WELFARE OF J.W. and A.W.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Syllabus by the Court

1. Discovery sanctions in a dependency and neglect hearing that deemed the central issues admitted and prohibited the introduction of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses did not violate respondents' constitutional rights and did not constitute an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

2. The trial court findings that J.W. and A.W. are dependent and neglected children within the meaning of Minn.Stat. Sec. 260.015, subds. 6(d) and 10(b) (1984) are not clearly erroneous and are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., Thomas L. Johnson, Ann Stiehm Ahlstrom, Minneapolis, Minn., for Hennepin County.

Thomas H. Shiah, Minneapolis, Minn., for Winston.

William R. Kennedy, David Duffy, Hennepin County Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minn., for Sherry.

Rand L. Decker, Minneapolis, Minn., for guardian ad litem.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

WAHL, Justice.

Hennepin County filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning J.W. and A.W. in district court. The district court held a trial and granted the petition, awarding legal custody to the county. Respondent parents appealed to the court of appeals, who reversed the district court order. The county sought further review. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the order of the district court.

On March 15, 1984, respondents brought their 2-year-old nephew, H.L., who was staying in their home, to the Minneapolis Children's Medical Center in critical condition. The child had received an injury to his abdomen and was in cardiopulmonary arrest. The respondents maintained that they were taking care of H.L. during the day when he suddenly became ill. The Hennepin County Bureau of Social Services petitioned the district court on March 20, 1984 for an order declaring the respondents' own children, J.W., then 2- 1/2 years, and A.W., then 1- 1/2 years, dependent and neglected children under Minn.Stat. Sec. 260.015, subds. 6(d) and 10(b) (1984) and transferring custody of the children to the county under Minn.Stat. Sec. 260.191, subd. 1(b)(2) (1984). In addition, the county asked the court to order the immediate temporary custody of the children pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 260.135, subd. 5 (1984). Finding probable cause to believe a protection matter existed, the district court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary custody of the county pending determination of dependency and neglect. H.L. died on March 23, 1984 and the medical examiner subsequently ruled his death a homicide. No criminal prosecution has yet been initiated, but the case is considered under active investigation.

Upon petition of the county, the district court ordered the respondents to submit to depositions. At the July 25, 1984 depositions, both respondents immediately invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The county then proceeded to question respondents regarding prior marital violence, intentional injury to H.L., and the cover-up of H.L.'s injury. In response to all questions, the respondents refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds.

On September 14, 1984, upon petition of the county, the district court issued an order deeming the matters for which the respondents had invoked the Fifth Amendment to be established for purposes of the petition and barring them from opposing those matters at the dependency and neglect trial. The court based its order on Minn.R.P.Juv.Ct. 57.10, subd. 4(a), (b).

Counsel for respondents objected to the July 31 order at trial. The district court, however, refused to allow respondents to introduce evidence or cross-examine witnesses concerning the matters deemed admitted and allowed counsel for respondents to make an offer of proof only at closing argument. The county called three witnesses. The doctor who examined H.L. on March 15 testified that the child had received an adult-inflicted blow to his abdomen 6-8 hours before being taken to the medical center. The medical examiner testified that the cause of death was homicide. The social worker present at an interview with respondents after they brought H.L. to the hospital testified that the father admitted he was alone with the children on March 15, 1984 when he noticed that H.L. suddenly started "breathing funny," and that he then brought the child to the medical center. The mother told the social worker and a police investigator that she had been at school during the day and, when she returned, saw that H.L. was ill, but noticed no bruises. The court also received into evidence an earlier affidavit and petition for protection filed by the mother alleging three prior instances of spousal abuse. Throughout the trial, the trial court limited counsel for the respondents to foundational objections and did not permit him to introduce evidence to rebut the county's case or to conduct cross-examination. Respondents made no offers of proof at closing arguments, but moved to have the petition dismissed.

The district court denied the motion for dismissal, ruled J.W. and A.W. to be dependent and neglected children under section 260.015, subdivisions 6(d) and 10(b) and awarded legal custody of the children to the county, placing them in foster care pending further order. The court based its ruling on the parents' history of violence, the unexplained homicide of H.L. for which one or both of the respondents was deemed responsible, and their cover-up of the circumstances surrounding H.L.'s injury. Based on these findings, the court concluded that respondents demonstrated a lack of ability to care for their own children, that J.W. and A.W. were, therefore, dependent and neglected, and ordered the children kept in foster care. The county was to prepare a case plan addressing all parenting issues raised, and the court continued the matter for a future dispositional hearing. Subsequently, the district court ordered that no case plan be adopted until resolution of the present appeal. The record indicates that there has been no disposition hearing. Respondents appealed separately to the court of appeals, where the appeals were consolidated.

The court of appeals reversed the district court and remanded the case for a new trial. In the Matter of the Welfare of J.W. and A.W., 374 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). The court of appeals found that, while the district court could deem admitted the answers to the deposition questions to which respondents invoked the Fifth Amendment, it was a denial of due process for the district court to bar the respondents from offering evidence or from cross-examining witnesses. To bar respondents from offering evidence or from cross-examining witnesses, in the court's opinion, created too great a risk of erroneous deprivation of the respondents' parental rights and required them to sacrifice due process in order to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The county, joined by the guardian ad litem, petitioned this court for further review, which was granted. 1

The issues raised on appeal are:

I. Whether the court of appeals correctly found that the district court's imposition of discovery sanctions violated due process; and

II. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court findings of dependency and neglect.

I.

The county and the guardian ad litem maintain that the district court sanctions for violation of its discovery order did not violate the respondents' due process rights because adverse inferences may be drawn in court actions when parties invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. They urge that parental due process rights do not override the public's interest in protecting dependent and neglected children and, therefore, prohibiting cross-examination and presentation of evidence in this case was constitutional. Further, appellants reason that any offer of proof or cross-examination concerning the matters deemed admitted would have been irrelevant.

Respondents assert that the district court sanctions coerced them into choosing one constitutional right over another or, in other words, penalized them for invoking the Fifth Amendment. They argue that their interest in the care, custody and companionship of their children outweighs the state's interest in providing sanctions for the violation of discovery orders. Respondents further maintain that it is in the state's interest, as well as the parents', to allow the respondents a full opportunity to be heard in order to reduce the risk of error. The mother separately argues that the sanction prohibited her from presenting evidence on her own behalf that would distinguish her actions from those of her husband.

The district court based its sanctions for violation of its discovery order on Minn.R.P.Juv.Ct. 57.10, subd. 4, which provides in part:

If a participant fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under these rules, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including the following:

(a) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made, or any other designated facts, shall be taken to be established for purposes of the proceeding, in accordance with the claim of the participant who obtained the order, or

(b) an order refusing to allow the disobedient participant to support or oppose designated claims, or prohibiting the disobedient participant from introducing designated matters in evidence, * * *.

Id.

These sanctions are normally allowed under the rules. In this case, however, they come into conflict with the right of parties in a dependency and neglect proceeding to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses when determining the central issues of dependency and neglect. Minn.R.P.Juv.Ct. 59.03, subd. 2, provides:

(A) Trial Rights....

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Welfare of M.D.O., Matter of, C3-89-1218
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 2, 1990
    ...847 (Minn.1988). The child's best interests, however, remain the paramount consideration in every termination case. In re Welfare of J.W., 391 N.W.2d 791, 794-95 (Minn.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1040, 107 S.Ct. 899, 93 L.Ed.2d 850 (1987); In re Welfare of J.J.B., 390 N.W.2d 274, 279 (Min......
  • In the Matter of Welfare of A.M.A., No. A06-1611 (Minn. App. 12/11/2007)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Minnesota
    • December 11, 2007
    ...The language of the statute also tracks with Minnesota courts' descriptions of due-process rights. See, e.g., In re the Welfare of J.W., 391 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn. 1986) (the right to be heard, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses form part of the general guarantees of due process)......
  • In re S.A.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 7, 2005
    ...Court of Appeals observed: The right to cross-examine witnesses is part of the general guarantee of due process. In re Welfare of J.W., 391 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn.1986) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)). But `it is an established element of trial ......
  • C.O. v. Doe, No. A07-826.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 2, 2008
    ...procedures would require. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (cited in Matter of Welfare of J.W., 391 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn.1986)). We conclude that the process followed by the district court here is constitutionally insufficient under the Mathews ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT