STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No, 27-FA-08-5921 In Re the Marriage: Anthony Hawthome Jones, Petitioner, and. Julie McMahon Jones, ‘The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on February 3, 2015; a status conference on February 11, 2015; and a telephone conference on April 1, 2015, before the Honorable Mary Madden, Referee of District Court, at the Family Justice Center, 110 South 4" Street, in the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Petitioner is represented by M. Sue Wilson, Esq. Respondent was represented by Brigid Goss, Esq. However, Ms. Goss withdrew as counsel for respondent on March 30, 2015. el Borowiak, therapist for the children, was present at the status conference and participated in the telephone conference. Based upon the files, proceedings and records herein, the Court makes the following: 1. The parties were divorced by Judgment and Decree entered November 17, 2009. They are the parents of the following joint minor children: Tones, bor Hones, born| jones, bora 2. Pursuant to the parties’ Parenting Plan dated October 9, 2009, the parties share joint legal custody and respondent was granted sole physical custody and the children’s primary residence was designated to be with respondent. Petitioner was granted regular parenting2rFA0e 502+ Fld in Faurh dudical Dstt auc Seaaes 1110 aM Wenner County Farniy. ON time every other weekend from Friday until Sunday and one overnight per week. This Parenting Plan was incorporated inte the parties’ Judgment and Decree, Pursuant to Stipulation and Order dated February 24, 2012, Andrea Niemi was appointed as the parties’ parenting consultant ("PC") to assist the parties in resolving disputes regarding the children. Her appointment expires upon the children's emancipation. However, Ms, Niemi was granted the discretion te terminate her services at any time for any reason. If Ms, Niemi terminated her appointment, the parties were to select a new PC pursuant to a specific selection process. The PC is prohibited from permanently modifying custody labels unless the parties agree in writing that the PC may do so and the PC agrees ta do sa. On January 26, 2015, respondent filed an emergency motion requesting, in patt, that ¢ immediately returned to her home and that petitioner's parenting time with suspended. On Jenuary 28, 2015, petitioner filed an emergency responsive motion, in part, requesting that he be granted sole legal and physical custody of ED Both parties submitted proposed ex parte orders. The Court did not grant either party ex parte relief, but scheduled 2 hearing for February 3, 2015. On the date of the hearing, the Court and counsel discussed possible alternatives 10 litigation. It was agreed that the children's therapist, Michael Borowiak, would be engaged to discuss « more global therapeutic pracess by which the pending issues could be resolved. A status conference was held with the Court, counsel and Mr. Borowiak on February 11, 2015 to discuss that process further. There were some agreements reached during that process and counsel agreed to incorporate those agreements into a Stipulation and Order, ‘The parties apparently could not reach agreement with respect to the terms of the Stipulation and Order, and on March 3, 2015, counsel for petitioner submitted a proposed order, On March 4, 2015, eounsel for respondent filed a response to that propesed order. A telephone conference with the Court, counsel and Mr. Borowik was scheduled for April 1, 2015. The Court deferred addressing the proposed order until that time. Respondent's counsel withdrew the day before the telephone conference, so respondent represented herself during that call, During the telephone conference, it became elear that the tentative agreement to-utilize a therapeutic process as an alternative to litigation was no longer a viable option given the extraordinary level of conflict between the perties. Respondent indicated in the telephone conference that she wes oppased to a modification of MM custody, but that she was alright with [IMM continuing to reside with petitioner. However, the course of the telephone conference it became less clear exactly what respondent's position is regarding, ME sence, Based on the above procedural history and the subsequent correspondence from counsel, it appears that there are some agreements that are appropriate to incorporate into court order. Those agreements include social media postings on the internet, IT sherapy, and some level of reengagement of Ms. Niemi.2rFA0e 502+ Fld in Faurh dudical Dstt auc Seaaes 1110 aM Wenner County Farniy. ON 9. There has-not yet been a hearing on the parties’ respective motions filed in January 2015. ‘There is no question that the parties’ intense and perpetual conflict is having a significant and detrimental effect on [MMMM emotional and perhaps psychological well However, there is virtually no manner in which the Court is able to-temedy this situation in a way that would not cause further detriment to INI) 11 is this Courts hope that the parties will recognize that further litigation on these issues will undoubtedly cause further harm tolfMond that they refrain from engaging in further litigation. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the files, proceedings and records herein, the Court makes the following: 1, The primary residence of the pa petitioner. s' minor child, (IN shall temporarily be wich 2. MBMshall continue to engage in therapy with Michael Borowiak. The parties shall participate in that therapy as requested by Mr. Borowiak and shall follow all recommendations of Mr. Borowiak. This includes any reunification therapy recommended by Mr. Borowiak. 3. Petitioner shall continue in individual therapy. Respondent shall re-engage in individual therapy, if she has not already done so. 4. Respondent shall be granted interim parenting time with Mas determined by the parenting consultant after obtaining input from Mr. Borowiak. Each party shall pay any retainer(s) required by the parenting consultant for this teengagement and shall do so immediately upon written request by the parenting consultant. 5. Both parties shall immediately cease posting or commenting on any intemet site, blog or social media network, directly or through any third party, about the other party or about this proceeding. This shell include posting/commenting under each party’s name or other pseudonym. 6 Both parties shall immediately remove any and all past posts/comments on any intemet site, blog or social media network under his or her own name or other pseudonym to the extent that they are able to do so. 7. [either party wishes to schedule a hearing on the parties’ January 2015 motions, they shall meke a written request to the Court no later then June 12, 2015. If neither party does 80, EEE temporary primary residence with petitioner shall become permanent. 8 Allother provisions of prior orders remain in full force and effect. 9. A copy of this order shall be e-served or mailed by first class U.S. mail to the parties er their attorneys at their last known mailing addresses.2rFA0e 502+ Fld in Faurh dudical Dstt auc ‘Sog0"$ 117107 aM Wenner County Farniy. ON 10. Unless otherwise ordered, all parties shall notify the other party and the Court of any change in residence, mailing address and telephone number within 10 days of such change. Any later actions brought or notices sent in this case for which personal service is not required may be sent to the most recent addresses provided by the parties to the Court. ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11,2015 ‘The foregoing order is recommended. ‘Findings of Fact and Order approved. g_— 2015.05.11 a JayFe— 9.9755 -05'00! Korn SD Mary Madden ‘Kevin S. Burke Referee of District Court Judge of District Court