In April 2024, I filed a 25-page formal brief with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. I asked the court to overturn the flagrantly biased order from Referee Jason T. Hutchison and his feminist activist law clerk, Kala Swenson. Their order came riddled with factual errors, and they twisted Minnesota statutes to meet their predetermined conclusions. After winning three previous trials to protect my relationship with my three daughters, the family court ignored those facts and contrived its own. It effectively terminated my relationship with my oldest daughter whom I have not spent time with in nearly two and a half years.
My appeal challenges the lower court’s ruling on four grounds:
- A court cannot terminate a parent’s rights without a finding of parental unfitness. The district court made no such finding. It also ignored prior findings that I have never harmed my daughters.
- The district court violated my due process rights. It allowed Jess Anderson, my daughters’ mother, to make numerous false statements on the stand and denied my right to present a rebuttal.
- The district court fabricated testimony to make an unsubstantiated finding of domestic abuse. In one of its most shocking Machiavellian maneuvers, the court put words in the mouths of two witnesses. When one of those witnesses filed a subpoena after the trial informing the court that it got his testimony wrong, Referee Jason Hutchison simply ignored it.
- A court cannot retroactively grant a move out of state with minor children. The Minnesota statute prevents anyone with joint custody from removing minor children from the state without the expressed consent of the other parent or the court. Jess Anderson had neither when she moved. Neither did she seek permission from the court until nearly a year later.
In Santosky v. Kramer, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that “the State cannot presume that a child and his parents are adversaries…[U]ntil the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.” The Court of Appeals will look at my arguments and the evidence on record to determine how to proceed.
“Given the gravity of the matter at hand, namely, the fleeting youth of the minor children and the removal of their father from their lives, Appellant beseeches the court to vacate the district court’s order.” (Conclusion of Appellant Brief)
The Court of Appeals has ninety days to issue its decision. May God grant justice.
