Court Opinion

ID: 9741279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:44.108253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.244447
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Granted that there is a common-law duty on the part of parents to support their minor children, how can it be said that appellant’s failure, if it can be deemed such, to fulfill that duty was purposeful in the face of a judicial decree that on its face absolves him of any duty to provide support? True, appellant provided no support for his child, but then why should he have been expected to, given the provisions of the Minnesota judgment? Appellant should not now be haled into court in a foreign jurisdiction for breaching a duty that in the circumstances of this case exists only in the abstract.
I would hold that the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to dismiss.
I am authorized to state that Justice Fosheim, joins in this dissent.