The MN Court of Appeals filed its opinion this morning. Jon Schmidt wrote the decision. Governor Tim Walz appointed Judge Jon Schmidt to the court one year ago. His biography shows he worked for the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office before taking the bench. [See update below.]

A Brief History

You might not know that the family court system is a relatively modern invention. It has evolved into its current form within the State of Minnesota over the past forty years. State laws and judicial precedence now grant judges “broad discretion” in determining custody and parenting time.

The family law courts of Minnesota have received a lot of negative press for their handling of child custody cases. The family law system often forces parents to spend years fighting for equal parenting time. Many parents must appeal family court orders that strip them of their rights, an often long and costly process. That accurately describes my situation. I filed my appeal in April 2024.

The Opinion

Minnesota state law considers it an abuse of discretion when a judge misapplies the law. I argued that the district court constructively terminated my parental rights by removing custody and parenting time. Judge Schmidt sidestepped the issue by parsing definitions and saying the court only revoked my parenting time “for now.” More than a year has passed, and the “for now” continues. How much time must pass before the court considers this a constructive termination of rights?

In his brief nine-page opinion, Judge Schmidt simply does not address the blatant errors made by the court. Instead, he leans heavily upon the “broad discretion” of the court. He believes this discretion rises above longstanding judicial doctrines and even state laws. (In full disclosure, he claims I forfeited my argument by not objecting to mother’s claims of abuse during the trial. However, this trial had nothing to do with domestic abuse. Referee Jason Hutchison simply pulled it out of thin air and used it in his final order to justify his findings. I could not object to what did not exist, and I certainly objected in my post-trial motion.)

The State of Minnesota requires a parent relocating out of state to obtain permission from the court or the other parent before doing so. Once again, Judge Schmidt abdicates the court’s responsibility by claiming the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction at the time. Even if true, that does not nullify the law. The girls’ mother sought no order from any court before moving to Wisconsin.

What’s Next?

I must consider my legal options and decide how to proceed. I appreciate your continued prayers and support. My daughters and I are missing irretrievable time together.

Update on Jon Schmidt

It has come to my attention that appellate judge Jon Schmidt was a former board member of the Minnesota chapter of the American Constitution Society. The ACS is a liberal legal organization with a stated mission to advocate for “laws and legal systems that redress the founding failures of our Constitution, strengthen our democratic legitimacy, uphold the rule of law, and realize the promise of equality for all, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and other historically excluded communities” [italics added for clarity]. The organization aims to put lawyers and judges in place who push living constitutionalism on an unsuspecting American populace. As the mission suggests, this progressive jurisprudence empowers judicial activism. Rather than relying on the founder’s intent and the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, these activists reinterpret the Constitution to fit their progressive worldview.

What Does This Mean?

A white, heterosexual male stands little chance before a judicial official like Jon Schmidt. Jon Schmidt does not belong on the bench. He belongs in a political backroom.

These officials care very little for the person pleading their case. They care more about forwarding their agenda.

We need judges who deliver justice according to the law, no matter who stands before them. A political court is a partial court, and the innocent will always suffer.

“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.” – Proverbs 18:5