Rosenblum: Family bonds lose in ruling by Minnesota’s highest court

  • Article by: GAIL ROSENBLUM , Star Tribune
  • Updated: April 3, 2013 - 11:45 PM

One thing we can say about Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson’s memorable remark regarding the state’s highest profile custody case in years is that it’s an apt metaphor. But maybe not in the way he intended.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
jancie6432Apr. 4, 1312:14 PM

No suprises here. Mn judges have been making inappropriate decisions on child custody for years!! Ask the mothers who are "required" to stay in minnesota because of a judge who won't let them move stating "parenting time". heaven forbid they allow grandparents to have anything to do with grandchildren. Yup gotta love those smart Mn judges!

2
12
Tigerlily23Apr. 4, 13 4:24 PM

Sincere appreciation the judge to have the courage and intergrity to rule in what he obviously believed were the best interests of the children. Nothing else deserves equal consideration.

7
7
SeaSharkApr. 5, 13 2:59 AM

GAIL ROSENBLUM swings and misses with this column. Gail unfortunately provides an incomplete capsule summary of Judge Kathryn Quaintance's trial court decision giving Liv and Steven Grosser custody of the girls. Judge Quaintance meticulously examined the evidence, identified what she sincerely believes are the girls' best interests, and properly ruled that it was better for the girls to stay with the Grossers, who according to her could more properly address their special needs, noting the "potential emotional and developmental damage that could result from removing the girls from the only home they know." There was, in my admittedly subjective opinion, no clear and convincing evidence presented at trial to conclude that Judge Quaintances's thoughtful decision would have been different if Mississippi officials had acted on their responsibilities in a timely manner. Their was no justification for severing the loving and trusting bond between the girls, Liv and Steven, and the Grosser children. The Minnesota Supreme Court's 5-2 decision for the Grossers correctly establishes that although relatives should be considered first when they request to adopt children, it doesn't necessarily mean they should be given preference when it comes to determining the best interests of the child. The Grossers and the girls are a family; family bonds won. The Supreme Court's ruling honors the best interests of these two precious children.

10
4
corydApr. 5, 13 5:57 PM

Gail, as someone who was almost taken away from the only family I knew when I was five to be handed over to my bio mother, you are very mistaken.

7
3
andrew172Apr. 6, 13 2:06 PM

Wonderful article and thanks for writing about it. The disintegration of the family unit brought on by courts and the family law system of parenting consultants, guardians ad litem, and lawyers have wrecked our families and children are paying the consequences for it. There is more to parenting than just money. I think justice Alan Page hit the nail on the head - money pays for everything. The reasons not cited is the influence or affluence of parents.

5
6
donhollyApr. 7, 13 7:16 AM

It's not over by a long shot? It's over, get over it.

3
3
james30Apr. 8, 13 2:22 PM

Only in America, where biological parents and grandparents have no rights to their offspring, but instead the highest bidder does. Another example of how broken the family courts system is, and the lawyers and consultants who profit from the family structure destruction.

0
1
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who wins tonight's Game 4?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT