Court Opinion

ID: 9710469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:10:22.05496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:57.085905
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the trial court with regard to supervised visitation. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding of any potential danger to the children that may result if Mr. Hall is granted unsupervised visitation. The statute provides:
If the court finds that the safety of the victim or the children will be jeopardized by unsupervised or unrestricted visitation the court shall condition or restrict visitation as to time, place, duration, or supervision,* * * as needed to guard the safety of the victim or the children.
Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(c) (1986). The majority concedes that Mrs. Hall has alleged no acts of domestic abuse directed at the Hall’s children. There is nothing in the record or findings that indicate Hall has ever abused or threatened to abuse his children, and the court’s findings do not indicate that Mrs. Hall’s safety will be jeopardized by unsupervised visitation.
It is difficult under the best of circumstances for a non-custodial parent to maintain a positive supportive relationship with the children. To be forced to exercise visitation rights under supervision can only make establishing and maintaining a normal relationship more difficult.
It is obvious that the relationship between the Halls is acrimonious. Mr. Hall has admitted to threats and verbal abuse, but evidently all directed at Mrs. Hall. It *631is unfair to punish Mr. Hall for these actions by restricting his relationship and activities with his children.
Because the statute requires that the victim or children be jeopardized by unsupervised visitation, and the record is devoid of any allegations or evidence that unsupervised visitation would endanger the children or Mrs. Hall, I would reverse the trial court on the matter of supervised visitation.