Etectronicaly Served srpsroots 1223:25 PM ‘kota County, MN State of Minnesota District Court Dakota County First Judicial District Court File Number: 194 V-FA-11-1273 Case Type: Dissolution with Child Notice of FILE COPY X | Filing of Order X | Entry of Judgment Docketing of Judgment Tn the Marriage of SANDRA SUE GRAZZINI-RUCKI vs DAVID VICTOR RUCKI *** Judge Knutson Assigned *** ‘You are hereby notified that the following occurred regarding the above-entitled matter: X_| An Order was filed on November 25, 2013. X_| Judgment was entered on November 25, 2013. You are notified that judgment was docketed on at in the amount of $. Costs and interest will acerue on this amount from the date of entry until the judgment is satisfied in full. Dated: November 25, 2013 Carolyn M, Renn Court Administrator Dakota County District Court 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley MN 55124 952-891-7256 cc: LISAMARIB ELLIOTT JAMES WARD DONEHOWER Michelle L MacDonald DANIEL J GOLDBERG JOHN MICHAEL JERABEK A true and correct copy of this notice has been served pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.04, Fup DaKova cou CAROL, ERY, Court stor NOV 25 2013 MNCIS-FAM-I18, ‘STATE Notice Rey, 09/2013Electronically Served sppsi2nt3 122525 PM Dakota County, WN STATE OF MINNESOTA, DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re the Marriage of: Court File No.: I9AV-FA-11-1273 Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Petitioner, FINDINGS OF FACT, and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT David Vietor Rucki, AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE REGARDING CUSTODY, Respondent, PARENTING TIME, AND CHILD SUPPORT and County of Dakota, Intervenor. ‘The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable David L. Knutson, Judge of District Court, at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota, on September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 for a trial on custody, parenting time, and child support issues. Michelle MacDonald, Esq. appeared representing Petitioner, who also appeared on the first day of trial, Petitioner left the courtroom unannounced partway through the second day of trial on September 12, 2013 and never returned. Lisa Elliott, Esq. appeared representing Respondent, who also appeared. John Jerabek, Esq. appeared representing the Guardian ad Litem, Laura Miles, who also appeared. us cou At Gta NOV 25 2013James Donchower, Assistant County Attomey, appeared representing Dakota County on the child support issues only. Mr. Donchower was excused with permission of the Court on the first day of trial after stating the County’s position on the issue of child support, I, PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ‘This extremely contentious dissolution action has a lengthy and complicated history. Thus, this Court finds that 2 summary of the procedural posture of this case is necessary. ‘A. The May 12, 2011 Judgment and Decree. ‘This dissolution action was commenced when Petitioner allegedly served Respondent ‘with a Summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on April 19, 2011, Shortly thereafter, at a default hearing on May 12, 2011, Petitioner presented a “Stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment, and Judgment and Decree” to the Court. Petitioner was represented by her attorney, Kathryn A. Graves, Esq., and Respondent did not appear. Following a very brief hearing, the Judgment and Dectee was approved by Judge Timothy D. Wermager and filed on May 12, 2011, ‘On June 6, 2011, Respondent brought a motion to vacate the Judgment and Deeree on the grounds that Petitioner committed a fraud on him by misrepresenting the document presented to him, This motion originally came before Judge Robert R. King on June 17, 2011. Judge King noted that something “fishy” was going on in this case, stating that he wondered how any rational person would sign the Judgment and Decree in this matter. (See Jul. 17, 2011 Order.) Judge King then set the matter on for an evidentiary hearing on the motion on July 12, 2011. The hearing was later continued to August 11, 2011 by the parties’ request and agreement.‘This matter was assigned to Judge David L. Knutson by Court Administration by a letter dated August 10, 2011. Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on August 11, 2011, and the Court agreed to continue the hearing to August 17, 2011. The evidentiary hearing on the motion to vacate the Judgment and Decree was held on August 17, 2011, and August 30, 2011. In addition to the testimony offered at the August 17, 2011 hearing, the parties were represented by counsel and agreed to a number of initial steps, including submitting to hair follicle drug testing, psychological and abuse evaluations, and participating in reunification therapy with the children at Moxie, Ine, (See Aug. 25, 2011 Order.) Petitioner's attorney, Kathryn A. Graves, Esq., filed a Notice of Withdrawal on the eve of the second day of the evidentiary hearing, and Petitioner proceeded pro se on August 30, 2011. At the evidentiary hearing, Respondent testified that he never saw nor read the Judgment and Decree before it was entered. (See Sept. 23, 2011 Findings of Fact, Order and Mem., p.3.) Respondent testified that he never received nor saw a notice of the date of the May 12, 2011 default hearing. (Id.) Respondent testified that Petitioner asked him to sign two pieces of paper to “get the divorce started.” (ld!) Respondent testified that the Judgment and Decree contained many provisions to which he never would have agreed, (Id) The Judgment and Decree awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties” five joint children to Petitioner. (Jd.) The Judgment and Decree provided that Respondent would pay to Petitioner spousal maintenance in the amount of $10,000.00 per month and child support in the amount of $3,673.00 per month for a total obligation of $13,673.00 per month, (Jd.) Respondent indicated that this amount was almost three times Respondent’s total monthly gross income at the time. (Jd.) Respondent testified that the Judgment and Decree also contained many errors and inaccuracies, including incorrect descriptions of the parties” vehicles and boats. (/d.) Respondent testified that he never‘would have approved such a document had he seen it before it was entered. (Id.) On May 12, 2011, police officers came to the homestead, and Respondent left the family home. (fd. at3.) The officers reported that Respondent seemed to be unaware of the Judgment and Decree that was filed earlier that day. Id. at 3.) This Court ultimately vacated the parties’ May 12, 2011 Judgment and Decree in a Findings of Fact, Order and Memorandum dated September 23, 2011, based upon fraud and misrepresentation by the Petitioner, among other reasons, (Id. at 6-11.) B, Subsequent Agreements and Orders, After the Judgment and Decree was vacated, the parties retumed to Court for a variety of different motion hearings, temporary hearings, and review hearings. During this time period, Petitioner was represented by several attorneys. Petitioner was represented Linda Olup, Esq., from September 12, 2011 until approximately January 2012. Petitioner was represented by Elizabeth Henry, Esq. from January 6, 2012 until November 1, 2012, and Petitioner has been represented by her current attomey, Michelle MacDonald, Esq., since January 8, 2013, Respondent has been represented by Lisa Elliott, Esq., throughout these proceedings. Shortly after the May 12, 2011 Judgment and Decree was vacated, the parties entered into a Stipulated Order that memorialized their agreements with respect to reunification therapy with. Moxie, Ine, and their psychological evaluations, (Stip. Order dated Oct. 6, 2011.) Following a review and motion hearing on November 8, 2011, the Court issued an Order addressing temporary living arrangements and temporary child support, among other issues. (Nov. 22, 2011 Order.) Respondent was ordered to pay child support to Petitioner in the amount of $1,752.00 per month, commencing October 1, 201 1. (id. at 5.) At this time, all five children were living with Petitioner in the homestead on Ireland Place in Lakeville, Minnesota (“Ireland Place home”), Respondent was living at the parties’property on Flagstaff Avenue (“Flagstaff home”) in Farmington, Minnesota, The children had little oF no contact with Respondent during this time except during their attempted reunification therapy sessions, As the case proceeded, the Guardian ad Litem, Julie Friedrich, and the children’s therapists at Moxie, Ine, noted their mounting concems that Petitioner was engaging in behaviors alienating the children against Respondent. (See Trial Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan. 19, 2012.) AReer it became clear that Petitioner was not supportive of the reunification efforts, Moxie reported that the case was not appropriate for reunification therapy at their office, The therapists reported that in cases where reunification therapy is not supported by both parents, reunification therapy can be emotionally harmful to the children and risk further entrenching their negative opinions of the rejected parent, (Id. at 18.) The therapists reported that a child safety center would be more appropriate for beginning the reunification process. (Id.) Following a teview hearing on January 27, 2012, the parties reached several more agreements which were incorporated into an Order filed February 3, 2012. (Feb. 3, 2012 Order.) Petitioner agreed to dismiss the Order for Protection against Respondent in Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1760, (Za) Respondent had previously agreed to the issuance of that Order for Protection, and the Court did not make any findings of abuse, (See Court File No. 19AV-FA- 1760.) The parties were ordered to begin therapeutic supervised visitation with the children at the Children’s Safety Center to help alleviate the parental alienation, (Id.) The February 3, 2012 Order reserved the issue of child support. (le) ‘Ata subsequent hearing on March 23, 2012, the parties were represented by counsel and again entered into several more agreements. (Mar, 27, 2012 Order.) The parties agreed that Respondent's child support obligation of $1,752.00 pet month would resume on April 1, 2012.(ld, at 1.) The parties also agreed to cooperate with a parenting consultant and to follow all recommendations of the parenting consultant. (fd, at 2.) Following a review hearing on May 7, 2012, Petitioner was ordered to participate in parenting coaching with Dr. Karen Irvin, and Respondent was order to participate in individual parenting coaching with Judy Sherwood. (May 10, 2012 Order.) ‘The parties struggled to comply with the court’s orders and their own agreements, The parties brought cross contempt motions against each other at a hearing on June 15, 2012. The record demonstrates that Petitioner was not maintaining the upkeep and mortgage payments on the Ireland Place home and was failing to comply with court-ordered therapy and evaluations, among other things. (Aug. 3, 2012 Order.) The record also shows that Respondent was not making his court-ordered child support payments. (Id. at 9.) At the contempt hearing, Petitioner asserted that she did not have the funds to maintain the mortgage payments and to pay for the therapy, but Petitioner’s financial documentation showed that she had received approximately $1,548,000.00 from an inheritance. (Id. at 3.) Respondent asserted that he was unable to make support payments because he could not get a line of credit to support his business activities until the financial aspects ofthe parties’ dissolution were resolved. (Id. at 11.) The Court’s August 3, 2012 Order also noted that Respondent hed not had any unsupervised parenting time with the children in over a year and that efforts to reunify the children with Respondent had been unsuccessful so far due tothe severe parental alienation that Petitioner had perpetrated, (Id. at 8.) This matter was ul ately scheduled for trial on August 28, 2012. (May 24, 2012 Scheduling Order.) Prior to the trial, counsel for the parties and the Guardian ad Litem. participated in a telephone conference with this Court on August 15, 2012. Given the limitedinformation available to the Court on the custody and parenting time issues, the parties agreed ‘that the tril on the custody and parenting time issues would be bifurcated and tried separately from the financial and property issues. (Aug. 30, 2012 Order at p.1.) The Court's August 30, 2012 Order noted that the reports of the Guardian ad Litem consistently found that Petitioner had not cooperated in the investigation of the Guardian ad Litem or the other professionals involved 4n this case, and that Petitioner continued to engage in behavior that alienates the children against Respondent. (fd. at 2.) The Court's Order noted that the reunification efforts through Moxie, Inc. and through the Children’s Safety Center/Genesis If were unsuccessful. (Ic.) The Order further noted that: “Petitioner's lack of cooperation and non-compliance of this Court’s Orders to comply with reunification of the children with Respondent are concerning to this Court, and it does not appear that Petitioner is considering the best interests of the children.” (Id) At that time, the Court found it necessary to appoint a neutral expert in the field of parental alienation before making an order of custody and parenting time. (Id. at 3.) Counsel for the parties agreed to the appointment of Dr. Paul Reitman to assess the parental alienation and reunification issues in this case, (Id, at 3.) ‘The trial on the financial and property issues was held on August 28, 2012. At the trial, Petitioner was represented by Elizabeth Henry, Esq., and Respondent was represented by Lisa Elliott, Bsq, On that day, the parties reached a “full, final and complete agreement on all the outstanding financial issues” after several hours of negotiation. (Aug. 28, 2012 Transcript, p.2.) ‘The parties’ attorneys read the agreement on the financial and property issues into the Court record, and both parties were sworn in and testified that they understood the terms of the agreement and that they were entering into the agreement voluntarily. Both parties were ‘questioned in detail with respect to their understanding of the specific terms of the agreement.(Apr. 19, 2013 Order, p.9,) The Amended ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Property Division dated November 7, 2012 memorializes the agreement that the parties put on the record at the August 28, 2012 trial date, Under the agreement, Petitioner was to bring the ‘mortgage on the Ireland Place property current by October 18, 2012, (Nov. 7, 2012 Am. Findings of Fact, Cone. of Law, and Order for Property Division, p.8.) Petitioner agreed that if she failed to do so, the property would be awarded to Respondent. (Jd.) The Ireland Place home ended up in foreclosure and was eventually transferred to Respondent. (Feb. 20, 2013 Summ. of Real Estate Disposition.) ‘On September 5, 2012, this Court heard an emergency motion brought by Respondent to have the children removed from Petitioner's care based on the report of Dr. Paul Reitman, After meeting with Petitioner and the children, Dr. Reitman strongly recommended that the children be removed from Petitioner's care and placed into “therapeutic foster care and immediately begin therapy and/or deprogramming to try to repair the damage that’s been done by the alienation.” (Sept. 5, 2012 Transeript, p.2.) Dr. Reitman’s August 29, 2012 clinical report included the following observations: “[T]he children appear to be very depressed and browbeaten, I am very concerned for them remaining in this situation, Their mother seems to be out of touch and suffering from a personality disorder, as well as a mood disorder and the ‘custody proceedings are clearly taking a toll on the children. It is my opinion that although somewhat unorthodox in this situation, the children will benefit from being removed from their ‘mother's custody and placed in a therapeutic foster home.” (Apr. 19, 2013 Order and Mem., p.10-11, quoting Aug. 29, 2012 Report of Dr. Paul Reitman, p.3.) After receiving Dr. Reitman’s recommendations, the Court heard Respondent's emergency motion to have the children removed from Petitioner's care based on the report of Dr.Reitman, The telephone conference hearing was on the record, and the attomeys for both parties and the Guardian ad Litem were present. It was the Couit’s understanding from the parties’ discussions on the record thet the removal of the children from Petitioner's care was not contested by any of the parties. Only one week eatlir, at the scheduled Court Trial on August 28, 2012, Petitioner indicated that she was willing to give up custody of all five ofthe children to Respondent immediately. (Apr. 19, 2013 Order and Mem., p.11~12.) In her August 29, 2012 ‘meeting with Dr. Reitman, she “reported that she had made an arrangement to give her ex- hhusband sole physical ... custody of their 5 children.” (Apr. 19, 2013 Order and Mem.,p.12, quoting Aug, 29, 2012 Report of Dr. Paul Reitman, p.1.) Following this hearing, Petitioner's attorney emailed to the Court a proposed Order in an. ‘email dated September 7, 2012 with language agreed to by the parties. (See Apr. 19, 2013 Order and Mem. p.12.) The Court reviewed and approved the proposed order after determining that removal of the children from Petitioner's care was in the children’s best interests. The Order provided that the children’s paternal aunt, Tammy Love, was to gain temporary physical and egal custody of the children and would reside with them in the Ireland Place home. (Sept. 7, 2012 Order, p.3.) The Order provided that that the children’s maternal aunt, Nancy Olson, could ime of the contact and visit with the children to assist Ms, Love during this process. (Id) At the initial order, Petitioner's sister, Nancy Otson, indicated that she did not want to be involved with the custody of the children while they remained in contact with Petitioner. (Sept. 5, 2012 ‘Transcript, p.5-6.) The Court asked the parties to work together fo attempt to secure her involvement. (/d, at 14-15.) The Order further directed both parents to avoid any contact with the children except as recommended in writing by the therapists involved with the parties and children, (Sept. 7, 2012 Order at 3.) The Order also stated that violation of the no-contactprovision would trigger a contempt proceeding. (Jd. In addition, the minor children were directed to immediately begin therapy with Dr. James Gilbertson. (Id. at 4.) Given the impending sheriffs sale on October 11,2012, Petit net's deadline to bring the mortgage current was also changed. (fd. at 4.) At the tial on September 11, 2013, Ms. Love explained that when she arrived at the Ireland Place home on September 7, 2012, the home was locked and she had no means of gaining access to the home. Ms, Love testified that Samantha, Gianna, Nia, and Gino ran away from her care, Nia and Gino went running after they got off the school bus and were later discovered trying to get to Quick Trip to make a phone call, Gianna and Samantha were discovered after they walked to the police station to make a complaint about Ms. Love. Ms. Love also learned that the parties’ oldest son, Nico, had been living with a fiend for the summer due to Petitioner's behavior and the unsuitable living condition of the home. Ultimately, police officers located the children and a crisis counselor helped facilitate allowing the four youngest law, children to go home with Nancy and Jay Olson, Petitioner's sister and brother Following the Court's issuance of the September 7, 2012 Order, the attorneys for the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order for Custody dated October 3, 2012 for the Court’s approval, In the Stipulation, the parties agreed that the children’s maternal aunt, Nancy Olson, ‘would be granted temporary joint legal and joint physical custody atong with Tammy Love, the children’s paternal aunt. The Stipulation provided that the four youngest ehildren “are doing well in {Ms. Olson’s] care and have settled into a routine at her home” and that the best interests of the children would be served by awarding Ms, Olson and Ms. Love with temporary joint legal and joint physical custody of the children. (Oct. 3, 2012 Stip. and Order for Custody, p.2-3.) Petitioner never objected to the Court’s entry of these temporary custody stipulations. Petitioner 10made no motion to have the children returned to her care until she brought a motion to vacate all the prior orders in February 2013—over six months after entry of the September 2012 Order. Following a review hearing on November 5, 2012, the Court issued an Order stating that the parties shall cooperate with and follow all instructions of Dr. Gilbertson regarding contact and parenting time. (Nov. 7, 2012 Order, p.2.) The Order also provided that the cust s may have contact with both parents on an equal basis. (Jd. at 1.) Following another review hearing on December 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order further specifying the steps the parties were to take to facilitate the children’s therapy with Dr. Gilbertson and stating that the parties shall have contact with the children at all times as directed and determined by Dr. Gilbertson. (Dec. 18, 2012 Order, p.2.) Elizabeth Henry, Esq, withdrew as counsel for Petitioner on Nov. 1, 2012. (Nov. 1, 2012 Not. of Withdrawal of Counsel.) Petitioner appeared pro se until January 8, 2013, when current counsel Michelle MacDonald, Esq, began representation. (Jan, 8, 2013 Certif. of Rep. and Parties.) On February 26, 2013, Ms. MacDonald appeared on behalf of Petitioner on motions to declare Minn, Stat. § 518 unconstitutional, to vacate the Amended Judgment and Decree, to me, to dismiss the Guardian ad Litem, ‘vacate all prior orders restricting custody and parenting and to vacate all orders and judgments for attomey’s fees. At this hearing, the Court also heard a number of pro se motions filed by Petitioner and a number of motions filed by Respondent's attorney. Following the hearing, the court agreed to conduct a listening session of the five children for the purpose of facilitating reunification therapy recommended by Dr. Gilbertson. (Mar. 29, 2013 Order and Mem, Sealing Tr., p.2.) This session was attended by both parties, theirattorneys, the Guardian ad Litem, and Dr, Gilbertson. (Jd.) Although a record was made of the session, the Court subsequently issued an order sua sponte sealing the transcript pursuant to Minnesota General Rule of Practice 11.06 and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedute 26.03. (Id.) ‘The order sealing the transcript explained that the statements had not been made for the purposes ‘of any motion and that any retease of the transcript would be contrary to the children’s best interests, (Id.) Inits April 19, 2013 Order, the Court responded to the numerous motions heard on February 26, 2013. (Apr. 19, 2013 Order and Mem.) Among other things, the Court denied Petitioner's motions to declare Minn. Stat § 518 unconstitutional and to vacate the prior orders. The Court's Memorandum noted thatthe prior orders that Petitioner sought to vacate were agreements entered into by the parties on the record when both parties were represented by counsel. (Id at 8.) The Memorandum also detailed the history of the temporary custody stipulations, (Id. at 8-17.) Based on recommendations from Dr. Gilbertson at the February 26, 2012 hearing, the Court also appointed Dr. Beth Harrington as a custody evaluator to make permanent custody and parenting time recommendations, (Apr. 22, 2013 Order Appt. Custody Evaluator.) That order was subsequently vacated, however, when Petitioner refused to cooperate the custody evaluator. (Jun, 18, 2013 Order.) | At the February 26, 2013 hearing, the Court also learned from Nancy Olson’s counsel that Ms. Olson could no longer bear the burden of cating for the children. The Court noted in its April 19, 2013 Order that Ms. Love already had joint legal and physical custody of the children, and that there was no Order in place preventing Ms. Love from taking immediate custody of the children, (Id. at 21.) The Order provided that Ms. Olson and Ms. Love were to coordinate with Dr. Gilbertson and the Guardian ad Litem a transfer of temporary custody of the four youngest 12children to Ms. Love's are as soon as those parties deem appropriate and in the best interests of the children, (7d. at 3-4.) On April 19, 2013, custody of the two older girls, Samantha and Gianna, was transferred to Ms. Love, but they eloped from her eare as described in further detail in the Findings of Fact herein, These two girls have been missing since April 19, 2013. On April 26, 2013, custody of Gino and Nia was transferred to Ms, Love, On May 3, 2013, the court received a motion from Julie Friedrich who requested the Court’s permission to withdraw as the Guardian ad Litem. (See Trial Exbibit #13.) Ms. Friedrich indicated that her ability to advocate for the children was significantly compromised by Petitioner's interference and false allegations. (Jd.) Ms. Friedrich also was concerned about personal threats made against her on a blog devoted to discussing this case and other family cases. (Jd) The Court granted the motion and directed the Dakota County Guardian Ad Litem Office to provide a successor Guardian ad Litem, (May 17, 2013 Order.) The Court indicated that the new Guardian ad Litem was appointed to make custody and parenting time recommendations and “implore{d] Petitioner to cooperate. ...” (Jun, 18, 2013 Order, p-4.) On June 12, 2013, the parties again appeared in court on various motions. Among other things, Respondent moved to hold Petitioner in contempt of court for allegedly having contact with the children and abducting them from Ms, Love's care. At this hearing, Respondent alleged that Petitioner knew where the children were or was actively involved in concealing them. Respondent noted that on April 22, 2013, Ms, Love received two letters from the girls along with a court petition from Petitioner. (Aug. 26, 2013 Order, p.6.) Respondent also noted that, Petitioner had contacted Fox 9 to investigate this case and the issue of “Parental Alienation,” and that both children appeared in the news special which aired on May 15, 2013. (fd.) Respondent ish Van Pilsum of Fox 9 to alleged that Petitioner, or someone on her behalf, arenged for B‘meet with and interview Samantha and Gianna for the story, (Id.) At that time, this Court declined to hold Petitioner in contempt on that issue, noting the lack of sufficient direct evidence of contact between Petitioner and the children. (Jd.) However, this Court ordered the parties to immediately disclose any information about the whereabouts of the two girls to the other party and to the appropriate authorities (fd. at 2.) ‘The Court also noted in its August 26, 2013 Order that Petitioner had not complied with j multiple Court Orders with respect to completing a psychological evaluation, undergoing therapy, and providing verification and records of her therapy to Respondent. (fd. at 7.) Petitioner stated in a responsive memorandum that she would “not sign any authorization for the release of anything.” (Id., quoting Petitioner's May 6, 2013 Response to Order Filed April 19, 2013 and April 22, 2013, p.3) The Court ultimately ordered these providers to release these records direetly to the parties’ attorneys since it was clear that Petitioner was not going to produce them. (ld; Jul, 23, 2013 Order and Mem.) At the July 12, 2013 hearing, Respondent and the Guardian ad Litem also moved to dismiss a separate Complaint Petitioner fited captioned “Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki v. David Victor Rucki, Lisa M. Elliott, Julie Friedrich, Dr. James Gilbertson and Dr, Paul Reitman.” The Court denied the motion, stating that any motions relating to a separate action should be considered under the court file number of that separate action, (Aug. 26, 2013 Order, p.11-12.) Petitioner has submitted three appeals to the Minnesota Court of Appeals during the pendeney of this case. On April 19, 2013, Petitioner appealed “the denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus.” (See Minn. Ct. App. Order, No. A13-0688 (Apr. 22, 2013).) The Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal on April 22, 2013. (Jd.) 4On April 22, 2013, Petitioner submitted to the Minnesota Court of Appeals a pro se Motion for Stay and Suspension of Rules, (See Trial Exhibit #13, Exhibit A (o Affidavit of Julie A. Friedrich.) Petitioner’s April 22, 2013 petition included letters from Samantha and Gianna Rucki who had eloped from Ms. Love’s care on April 19, 2013. (Ic.) On June 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition which sought to compel the district court to hear her petition for a wit of habeas corpus. (See Minn, Ct, App. Order, No. A13-0738 (Jun, 11, 2013),) Petitioner also submitted a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals, requesting that the Court of Appeals compel this Court to award her certain relief, The Court of Appeals denied the petition and found mandamus inappropriate for each of the issues raised. (See ‘Minn. Ct. App. Order, No. A13-0859 (Fun, 11, 2013),) The Court of Appeals also upheld the district court’ authority to issue the September 7, 2012 temporary order pertaining to temporary custody and vacation of the home, (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner subsequently appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which denied her petition for further review on August 20, 2013. (See Minn, Supreme Court Order, No. A13-0859 (Aug. 20, 2013),). Petitioner's attorney has indicated hr intention to appeal to the United States Supreme Court and fo sue this Court in federal district court related to the issues involved in this case. C. The Days Leading Up to the September 11-12, 2013 Custody Trial. ‘The dates for the custody trial were agreed upon by counsel and set for September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 in a Pre-Trial Order dated June 13, 2013. In the days leading up 10 the tial, this Court received two letters from Ms, MacDonald's law office. In a September 9, 2013 lotr, she asserted a number of allegations against this Court and claimed that day two of the had been canceled. (See Sept. 9, 2013 Correspondence from MacDonald Law Firm.) Ms. 15‘MacDonald also informed the Court that she planned to file a federal lawsuit against this Court, personally. (See Sept. 10, 2013 Correspondence from MacDonald Law Firm.) In response to the September 9, 2013 letter, this Court’s law clerk emailed all parties on September 10, 2013 to confirm that the trial was still scheduled for September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 of that week, This Court’s law clerk advised the parties that no one spoke to the Court about shortening, the length of the trial, that the Court’s Pre-Trial Order dated June 13, 2013 confirms that the trial {s scheduled for two days, and that the Court expected that all parties would be prepared to proceed with the tial beginning on September 11, 2013. fn response to the September 10, 2013, letter, the Court's taw clerk sent a second email to all parties confirming again that the trial was scheduled to commence to begin on September 11, 2013. ‘The attorneys for the parties also appeared before this Court just a few days prior to trial on September 6, 2013, on several nton-party witnesses’ motions to quash subpocnas improperly served upon them by Ms, MacDonald, The Court notes that no one raised any questions about the length of the trial at the September 6, 2013 hearing, and no other parties claimed that the trial was only scheduled for one day. D. Day One of the Custody Trial, September 11, 2013, Prior to the commencement of trial, the Court heard arguments on a number of motions in mine brought by Respondent's attomey. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court took a brief recess and then returned to the courtroom and informed the parties of its rulings on the ‘motions in imine, The Court then asked Petitioner's attomey to call her first witness, Before calling any witnesses, Ms, MacDonald asked the Court if it had received a letter she emailed to the Court on September 10, 2013. The Court indicated that it had received her letter. Ms. MacDonald again advised that she had filed’a federal class action lawsuit against this 16Court, personally, for $330,499,861.32, Ms, MacDonald then demanded that the Court remove himself from this ease, which was denied by this Court, At the time of trial, this Court was not aware of any lawsuit and had not been served with any federal complaint. The Court advised the parties that the tral on the custody, parenting time, and child support issues could not be delayed any longer and that it could not allow these parties and their children (o remain in a state of limbo any longer, At the time of the tral, this case had been pending for over two years, Ms, MaeDonald proceeded to call Petitioner Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki as a witness, fier Ms, Grazzini-Rucki's testimony concluded, Ms. MacDonald stated that Petitioner had no farther witnesses, After Petitioner rested, Ms. Elliott proceeded to call Respondent’s first witness, Tammy Love, the children’s paternal aunt. Dr, James Gilbertson, the children’s therapist, and Kim Sumner, the parking manager of the Macy’s pat downtown 1g lot Minneapolis, also testified during the first day of trial. E. Day Two of the Custody Trial, September 12, 2013. ‘On the morning of September 12, 2013, before the start of the second day of trial, Ms, ‘MaeDonald demanded that the Court’s court reporter provide her with the transcript from the first day of trial, Ms, MacDonald approached the court reporter, demanded the transcript, and demanded thatthe discussion be on the record, At this time, the Court advised the parties that it ‘would recess until all parties were present in court. At approximately 9:30 a.m.,, this Court returned to the courtroom to begin the trial, The Court was informed that during the recess, Ms. MacDonald was taking photos in the courtroom and refused to comply with the deputy’s orders. The Court took no action. At this time, Ms. MacDonald made a motion requesting that the Court immediately restore Petitioner’s custody rights and property rights, Ms. MacDonald made another motion to remove this Court from this 7case. Ms, MacDonald again notified this Court that she had filed a federal civil lawsuit against ‘he Court, personally. With respect to the first motion, the Court informed Ms, MaeDonald that the very purpose of the trial was to resolve the custody, parenting time, and child support issues, and that her motion was denied. The Court informed Ms. MacDonald that the trial was going to proceed to resolve those very issues. With respect to the motion to remove, this Court again denied the motion, reiterating that the Court had not seen any documents regarding the federal lawsuit and was not concerned about it, and that this matter was going to proceed and be determined according to the law and the facts that are presented, Ms. Elliott then proceeded to call Respondent's next witness, Julie Friedrich, the former Guardian ad Litem appointed (o this, file, ‘The Court took a brief recess when Ms. MacDonald requested a break to obtain a 2011 calendar during her cross-examination of Ms. Friedrich, The Court leamed that an incident ocurred with Ms. MacDonald during the break, Sergeant Christopher Melton with the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office appeared in Court with Ms, MacDonald, who was seated in a wheelchair, and informed the Court of what occurred during the break. Sgt, Melton stated that before the trial began that morning, Ms. MacDonald was seen taking photographs of the courtroom. Sgt. Melton stated that in order to expedite the court process and to allow the trial to proceed, Sgt, Melton waited until another break in the tral to give her a misdemeanor citation for contempt of court. During the break, Sgt. Melton told Ms. MacDonald that she was under arrest for contempt of court and that she was not going to be handeuffed, but that she needed to give the deputy her full name, date of birth, and address so that he could issue her a ticket and then release her. Ms. MacDonald refused to provide this information to the deputy. Sgt. Melton stated that he was going to take her camera as evidence and have it examined to see and verify that 18pictures were taken in the courtroom. Sgt, Melton reiterated that as soon as Ms. MacDonald gave him her fall name, date of birth and address, she would be released. At this time, the Court observed that Petitioner Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Ms. ‘MacDonald's staff, and their supporters had vacated the courtroom with all of Ms, MacDonalds boxes and files. The Court asked Ms. MacDonald several times how she would like to proceed. Ms, MacDonald made no response to any of the Court's inquiries, Without any response from Ms, MacDonald, the Court stated that the trial was going to proceed under Minnesota General Rule of Practice 307. The Court stated that Ms. MacDonald was welcome to participate or not patticipate however she wished, The Court stated that Ms. MacDonald was welcome to remain in the courtroom or go with the deputies. The Court again asked Ms. MacDonald several times what she would like to do. Ms. MacDonald continued to make no response. The Court then slated that having received no response from Ms, MacDonald, the trial was going to proceed and that Ms. MacDonald may remain in the courtroom and could participate if she desired. Ms. Friedrich was still on the stand at this point, The Court then asked Ms, MacDonald if she wished to cross examine Ms, Friedrich any further. Ms. MacDonald made no response. Ms. MacDonald never asked to contact her client and never asked for any accommodations even after the Court asked what she would like to do and gave her several opportunities to call her client. Ms. ‘MacDonald simply ignored the Court’s inquiries and made no response. At this time, the attorney for the Guardian ad Litem, John Jerabek, proceeded to examine Ms. Friedrich. Ms. MacDonald eventually spoke after Mr. Jerabek completed iis cross-examination of MSs. Friedrich and the Court asked Ms. MacDonald if she had any questions, Ms. MacDonald again stated that she objected to the proceedings and requested again that the Court immediately restore Petitioner's custody and property rights, The Court stated that her request was denied. 19‘The Court again stated that it would give Ms. MacDonald an opportunity to comply with the deputy’s requests and an opportunity to call whoever she believed took all of her boxes and files out of the courtroom, The Court asked Ms, MacDonald what she would like to do and if'she ‘would like to call her client, Ms. MacDonald again made no response, Ms, Elliott then prepared to call the next witness, Respondent David Rucki. At this time, Ms, Elliott noticed that Exhibit #12 had disappeared when Ms. MacDonalds agents removed her boxes and files from the courtroom. The Court asked Ms. MacDonald why her agents removed the materials from the courtroom, and Ms. MacDonald stated that she did not know. At this time, Deputy Gonder from the Dakota County Sheriff's Office stated that they made it very clear to Ms. MacDonald that she was going to be returned to the courtroom after she received her citation and was released. Deputy Gonder stated that there was no expectation that she would be detained for any more than a few minutes and that there was no reason for her client to leave and for her agents to remove the files from the courtroom, Deputy Gonder stated, that her cell phone could be returned to her immediately. Deputy Gonder noted that Ms. ‘MacDonald’s shoes were not on her feet because she refused to put them on and that her glasses ‘were not on her face because she refused to put them on, Deputy Gonder stated that the only reason that Ms. MacDonald was in a wheelchair was because she refused to stand up to return to court, Deputy Gonder stated that they had to lift her from her seat and place her in the wheelchair in order to bring her back into the courtroom. The Court stated to Ms. MacDonald that she alone made these choices and that she could easily remedy this situation by complying with the deputy’s requests, putting on her shoes and glasses, and calling her office to get her property back, Ms. MacDonald continued to make no response and ignored the Court’s inquiries asking her what she would like to do, Ms, MacDonald never asked to contact her client or to call her 20office even after the Court gave her multiple opportunities to do so, The Court has never received any communication from Petitioner indicating why she left the trial or requesting any accommodations. Ms, Elliott then called Ms, Friedrich back to the stand to enter a new copy of Exhibit #12 irich confirmed that Exhibit #12 into the record, which was marked as Exhibit #12. Ms. was the same as the previous Exhibit #12 which had been removed from the courtroom, and Exhibit #12A was entered into the record, The second day of trial continued, and the Court heard testimony from Julie Friedrich, Respondent David Rucki, and Laura Miles. Ms, MacDonald asked Respondent a few questions about his employment history but otherwise made no response after the Court asked her if she would like to cross examine Respondent. Ms. MacDonald participated in asking Ms. Miles a few questions. Following the completion of Ms, Miles? testimony, the trial concluded and the matter was taken under advisement. Based upon the testimony adduced at tral and all (he files, records and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following: Il, FINDINGS OF FACT 1, Minor Children, ‘The patties are the parents of five minor children: Nico James Rucki, bo June 22, 1996, currently age 17; Samantha Victoria Rucki, born June 24, 1998, currently age 15; Gianna Jade Rucki, born November 2, 1999, currently age 14; Nia Gabrielle Rucki, bom September 25, 2001, curtently age 12; and Gino Paolo Rucki, born January 20, 2003, currently age 10. a2. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction to determine the custody of the minor children of the parties’ marriage pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 518A, ef. seq., the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. 3, Missing Children. The parties’ two oldest girls, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki, have been missing since they eloped from the care of their paternal aunt on April 19, 2013. Neither of the girls has attended school since April 19, 2013. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 19, 2013, the children’s maternal aunt, Nancy Olson, was ordered to coordinate a transfer of temporary custody to the children’s paternal aunt, Tammy Love. The ‘custody ttansfer was to be facilitated by Dr. Gilbertson and the Guardian ad Litem, (Apr. 19, 2013 Order, p.2~3.) On April 19, 2013, custody of the two older girls, Samantha and Gianna, was transferred to Ms, Love, The children arrived at the Ireland Place home with the assistance ofa police officer from the Lakeville Police Department, Ms, Love testified that she heard a cell phone ring tone while the girls were speaking to the officer. Ms, Love testified that she was not aware that cither of the girls had a cell phone, Ms, Love testified that a few moments later she went down to the basement of the home with Gianna to retrieve some of the gitls' things. Ms. Love testified that as she was grabbing a box, Gianna went upstairs and then she heard a door shut, When Ms, Love reached the top of the stair, she did not see the girls but noticed that their shoes were still there. After she searched the house and realized they were nowhere to be found, Ms, Love immediately called the police. Ms. Love has reported the children’s disappearance to Missing Children of Minnesota and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Ms, Love testified that she believes that the two girls are with Petitioner or an agent of hers. On April 22, 2013, Ms. Love received two letters allegedly written by the giris along with a court petition from Petitioner. At the bottom of each letter was a hand-written note signed by 22each girl requesting that they be allowed to live with their mother. (See Trial Exhibits #3 and #4.) In her report, Ms, Miles also stated that she believes that Petitioner continues to harbor her two daughters. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p,2.) In her Petition to the Court of Appeals, Petitioner requested that the Court order an indefinite stay of the Order filed April 19, 2013 so that “youngest four children would remain in theit mother's custody and care pending the Court’s ruling on mother’s appeal of her application for a Writ of. Ato Affidavit of Julie A. Friedtich, p.3.) Habeas Corpus.” (See Trial Exhibit # 13, Exhi ‘Someone located Samantha and Gianna Rucki and brought them to an interview with a local news broadcast, which aired on television on May 15, 2013. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem Laura Miles dated Jun. 3, 2013, p.2.) Samantha and Gianna Rucki currently have open truancy files in Dakota County. Mike Vieburg, the truaney worker assigned to their ‘cases, reports that he has been unable (o contaet Petitioner and does not know the whereabouts of ‘Samantha and Gianna Rucki, (Id. at 2.) Respondent testified that he is convinced that the two girls are with Petitioner, Respondent testified that he has not stopped looking for the girls, and he has driven out to Elko, Minnesota to sce if he can locate them, Respondent testified that Petitioner lives with her boyfriend in Elko, Minnesota. In July 2013, Respondent testified that he was sitting in his .d’s home when he observed Gianna come vehicle a few blocks away from Petitioner's boyfii out of the house. Respondent testified that he immediately called the detective working on this case but that the detective did not answer. Respondent testified that he then dréve toward the house, but Gianna saw him coming and ran around the house. Respondent turned around and drove back by the house and observed Petitioner’s boyfriend in the yard videotaping Respondent, 23Ms. Miles’ report indicates that the Lakeville Police Department has received reports that the girls are at Petitioner's boystiend’s home in Elko, Minnesota, Ms. Miles’ report also states that Lakeville Police have been out to this home, but have not had cause to execute a search ‘warrant or enter the home at this time, (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p.7.) ‘There was no evidence presented at tral that Petitioner hes ever reported the children's disappearance or that she has made any efforts to locate them. During her testimony at trial, Petitioner claimed that she was under a court order not to look for her children. There is no court order prohibiting Petitioner from taking actions to locate her missing children, Petitioner had a flat affect and showed no emotion when speaking about her missing children. Her testimony regarding the whereabouts of her children was uncooperative and obstructionistic. Respondent, Ms. Love, and Ms. Miles testified they are very concerned that Petitioner would abduct the other three children if she is alone with them. 4, Professionals. A number of professionals have been appointed to assist in the relationship issues inthis case and to make recommendations. A brief summary of the professionals’ testimony and/or recommendations are included below. a, Julie Friedrich, former Guardian ad Litem, Julie Friedrich was appointed as the children’s Guardian ad Litem on July 14, 2011 and ‘was dismissed as the Guardian ad litem on May 17, 2013. Ms. Friedrich filed multiple reports with the Court during her appointment. (See Trial Exhibit #12A.) Ms. Friedrich testified that Respondent was cooperative in her investigation. Ms. Friedrich testified that Petitioner was not, cooperative in her investigation, Ms. Friedrich testified that she requested to be dismissed from the case because she no longer felt like she could advocate for the best interests of the children 24due to false information that was provided to them by Petitioner. Ms. Friedrich also testified that she began to feel personally threatened over her involvement with this case Ms, Friedrich stated that Petitioner had lied repeatedly about her to the minor children ‘and to GAL program supervisors and others. (See Trial Exhibit #13, Affidavit of Julie A. Friedrich, p.2.) Ms. Friedrich testified that Petitioner told the children things that compromised Ms, Friedtich’s ability to have rapport with them, Petitioner alleged that Ms. Friedrich called one of the children (Samantha) fat, Ms, Friedrich stated that she has represented the best interests of hundreds of children and has never made such negative statements about a child. Petitioner alleged that Ms, Friedrich had spread rumors at Lakeville High School that Samantha was in “juvie.” Ms, Friedrich testified that she never made any such statements, Petitioner also alleged that Ms. Friedrich forced Samantha to take a pregnancy test, Ms, Friedrich never made any such recommendation, Petitioner made numerous other false allegations against Ms, Friedrich, Petitioner shared many, if not all, ofthe allegations with the children, which significantly limited the ability of Ms, Friedrich to represent the children’s best interests in this case. (Id. at 5.) Ms. Friedrich also testified that Petitioner made complaints against her to Ms, Friedrich’s boss, her boss's boss, and the Guardian ad Litem program director of the whole state, After Samantha and Gianna eloped from Ms, Love’s care, Petitioner submitted two letters from the girls along with a court petition to the Court of Appeals, (See Trial Exhibit # 13, Exhibit Ato Affidavit of Julie A. Friedrich.) The letter allegedly written by Samantha stated “My mom has not alienated us from our father in any way, the courts, Gilbertson and fridedrie [Friedrich] have lied and told us many things that weren’t true about our mother they threaten us with going to jail or said we better ‘comply or else” they also said stuff like I will put you in foster care and you know what they do in those a [sic] homes thefy] abuse kids. .. Gilbertsin fsic] and friedrich have told so many lies that they didn’t make sense any more they were never consistent with things and whon I would question they would get furious and thefy) would raise thefir] voice and get very mad. ...” (id at 5.) 25Ms, Friedrich stated that all of these allegations were completely false. Ms, Friedrich stated that she has never told the children any of these things and has never raised her voice in ‘the presence of the children. In addition to providing false information to the children, Petitioner also interfered with Ms, Friedrich’s school visits. When Ms. Friedrich arrived at Century Middle School, she was informed that Samantha and Gianna children were home sick. When she artived at the high school, Ms. Friedrich learned that Petitioner had called the school and informed the schoo! that Ms, Friedrich did not have authorization to visit with Nico, that Ms. Friedrich did not have proper identification, and that Petitioner's attomey, Elizabeth Henry, Esq,, had advised her not to allow the Guardian to visit the children, Ms, Friedrich testified that she had the proper identification, paperwork, and authority to meet with the children, Ms. Friedrich testified that the same series of events happened at the elementary school, Ms, Friedrich asked Ms. Henry ifshe had advised Petitioner to tell the schools she did not have the authority to meet with them, and Ms. Henry said absolutely not. When Ms. Friedrich was able to meet with the children at the elementary school, she met with Nia and Gino together because Petitioner requested that Ms. Friedrich not meet with Gino alone due to his doctor's recommendation, When Ms. Friedrich checked with Gino's doctor, she learned that this was not true either and that he supported the child being interviewed alone. Ms. Friedrich indicated in her report that Nia and Gino’s responses seemed to be coached or scripted. (See Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan, 19, 2012, p.15.) Ms. Friedrich indicated that the children repeated the same allegations over and over regarding Respondents inadequacies. In her report, Ms, Friedrich expressed concer that the children were privy to way too much adult information 26including issues such as child support, custody, and alleged extramarital affairs, ee. (Id. at 15 16.) Petitioner also physically interfered with Ms, Friedrich’s visits with the children. During Ms, Friedrich’s meeting with the children at the elementary school, Petitioner appeared at the school despite having two sick children at home, (Id. at 16.) Petitioner walked through the schoo! directly tothe children’s classrooms without checking in atthe office. (Jd) The office reported that Petitioner is not supposed to wander through the hallways without checking in, but that is Just what she does, (Zd.) The office reported that they allow her to do that in order to avoid drama in the office. (Jc!) Ms. Friedrich testified that during this meeting, Petitioner burst into the ‘meeting room and was very emotional and dramatic, sereaming “please don’t take my babies.” Petitioner did this directly in front of the two children. Ms. Friedrich reported that this behavior scared the children and improperly influenced them. (See Trial Exhibit # 13, Bxhibit A to Affidavit of Julie A. Friedrich, p.2.) Ms. Friedrich indicated in her report that she observed that most of the children’s fears at that time appcared to be Petitioner’s fears that have been significantly projected and transferred onto them, (See Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan, 19, 2012, p.17.) Ms. Friedrich reported that the children had few individual opinions or thoughts. (Id.) In addition to Ms. Friedrich not being able to advocate for the children, Ms. Friedrich also testified that she began to feel personally threatened. Ms. Friedrich testified that she became aware of a website, carvercountycortuption.com, which is a blog run by a group of people that feel that there is corruption in the court system. Ms, Friedrich testified that the site is not fact based and that people can anonymously post things, Ms, Friedrich testified that she thought it ‘was time for her to get off the ease when there were postings on the website that talked about her 2personally, that threatened her career, and that threatened her children and her family. Ms. Friedrich testified thatthe blog posts talked about the guardians and other professionals in this case, When Ms. Friedrich read some of these comments, Ms. Friedrich took them as a personal threat and decided that it was time to get off the case Ms. Friedtich filed multiple reports with the Court during her appointment. (See Trial Exhibit #12.) In all of her reports, she recommended that the children continue with their their father. In her report dated November 1, 2011, Ms. Friedrich reunification efforts recommended that the parties and the children participate in reunification therapy with Moxi Inc. and follow the recommendations of the reunification therapists, (Jd.) She further recommended that the parties follow all recommendations from the psychological evaluations ‘and chemical health evaluations and that Respondent follow all recommendations from the domestic abuse program. (Jd) In her January 19, 2012 report, Ms, Friedrich recommended that the parties and the children participate in parenting time at the Children’s Safety Center and follow all recommendations of the reunification therapists. (/d.) She further recommended that the parties follow all recommendations from the psychological evaluations and that Petitioner participate in individual therapist with a therapist specializing in personality disorders. (fd.) She also recommended that the children participate in individual counseling. (Jd.) In her March 7, 2012 report, Ms. Friedrich made the same recommendations as in the January 19, 2012 report and also recommended that the parties should consult with the children’s individual therapists and follow all recommendations. (Jd) In her April 30, 2012 report, Ms. Friedrich made the same recommendations as in the March 7, 2012 report and also recommended that Petitioner participate in parenting coaching with Karen Irvin, (Id) 28Ms. Friedrich testified that Respondent followed all of the recommendations that Ms. Friedrich made during her appointment. Ms. Friedrich testified that Petitioner was not cooperative in her investigation and did not follow her recommendations. Ms. Friedrich testified ‘that she was particularly concemed that Petitioner never followed her recommendations to seek individual counseling with a therapist who specializes in personality disorders. b. Dr. James Gilbertson, the children’s therapist, Dr. James Gilbertson was appointed as a therapist for the children by the agreement of the parties, (Sept. 7, 2012 Order, p.4.) Dr. Gilbertson testified that he had 13 contacts with the children between November 25, 2012 and April 26, 2013. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he has no concems about Respondent with the children. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he does have concerns about Petitioner with the children, Dr. Gilbertson testified that Petitioner did meet with him initially, but was not forthcoming with information he asked for. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he would ask four or five ‘questions to get information on something that most parents would give him in one statement. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he arranged a visitation with Petitioner and the children on two different occasions. Dr. Gilbertson testified that Petitioner has not contacted him to arrange any parenting time since the two older girls eloped from Ms, Love’s care. Dr. Gilbertson testified that ‘he was hopeful early on that he would gain the trust of both parents but that has evaporated. Dr. Gilbertson testified that Petitioner has contempt for him and for this entire process. Dr. Gilbertson described Petitioner as obstructionistic, Dr. Gilbertson testified that he was concerned about Petitioner's belief system. Dr. Gilbertson testified that Petitioner believes that she has been caught up in the foils of an unfair and discriminatory judicial system. Dr. Gilbertson testified that she holds those belief’ in a very deep fashion and that has been her posture throughout these 29proceedings. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he believes that she has conveyed those attitudes to the children, about whom to trust and not to trust. Dr. Gilbertson testified that the children love her and that her words speak loudly to them. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he is aftaid that Petitioner will have an undue negative influence on them because of her failure to embrace reality and truth. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he agreed with the final recommendations of the Guardian ad Litem and that her recommendations were consistent with all the information that he has ‘gathered. Dr, Gilbertson testified that he believes that Respondent would support the children’s, relationship with Petitioner. Dr, Gilbertson testified that he did not believe that Petitioner would support the children’s relationship with Respondent. Dr. Gilbertson recommended that Petitioner be allowed to have supervised parenting time according to a predictable schedule, such as every two weeks or so c. Laura Miles, Gum nad Litem, ‘Ms, Miles was appointed as the successor Guardian ad Litem on May 22, 2013 following Ms. Friedrich missal from the case. (See May 22, 2013 Order to Appoint Guardian ad Litem.) Ms. Miles was appointed {o make temporary and permanent recommendations as to custody and parenting time and whether the children and/or the patties should participate in additional services. (Id.) ‘Ms. Miles indicated that Respondent has been cooperative with her investigation. Ms. Miles has had multiple phone calls with Respondent and observed him in both homes twice with three of the children. Ms. Miles’ report indicated that Respondent's relationship with Nico, Nia, and Gino has improved greatly over the summer. 30Ms, Miles testified that Petitioner did not cooperate in her investigation and that she has had no direct contact with Petitioner despite numerous attempts to contact her through letters and phone calls. At the June 12, 2013 hearing, Petitioner indicated that she had nothing to say to Ms. Miles. Ms, Miles testified that she believes that the missing girls are in the care of Petitioner. MGs, Miles testified that following the girls’ disappearance, Petitioner sent her letters with statements allegedly written by the girls, In her August 29, 2013 report, Ms, Miles indicated that she attempted to contact Petitioner on August 26, 2013 at a telephone number that Petitioner provided in a Scott County court document. (See ‘Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p.2.) The phone eall was answered by a male, who later identified himself as Dale Nathan. (/d.) Mr. Nathan stated that Petitioner was “out of state.” (/d. at 3.) Mr. Nathan stated that “school is starting real soon, and there is no way those girls will ever be returned to that abusive home~ ever” and “if you want those girls to be retumed to the sexual misconduct of their father and Dr. Gilbertson, it will not happen.” (/d.) Ms. Miles stated that the purpose of the call was to simply leave « message for Petitioner. Mr. Nathan then stated “you are flirting with a real scrious situation here” and “ will make sure you answer to somebody.” (Jd) Ms. Miles previously received a letter from Dale Nathan, dated July 8, 2013, along with a CD copy of a TV newscast involving Samantha and Gianna Rucki, (d.) In this letter, Mr. Nathan alleged that Samantha and Gianna Rucki are the vietims of sexual abuse by Dr. Gilbertson and Respondent. (/d.) Mr, Nathan ordered Ms. Miles to notify social services of these alleged ‘offenses, stating “I will hold you responsible to perform youfr] statutory obligation, Guaranteed.” (ld) 31Inher final report, Ms, Miles stated that this case has been one of the most difficult cases that she has seen and that the children are the ultimate victims of this situation, Ms. Miles" final report recommended that (1) Respondent be granted sole legal and physical custody of all five children; (2) visitation between the children and Petitioner be supervised at the Children’s Safety Center at the highest level of supervision; (3) Petitioner complete a valid, updated psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations; (4) Upon the retum of Samantha and Gianna Rucki to his custody, Respondent should follow through on the appropriate therapeutic services to assist in their integration into his home; and (5) Nico and Nia Rucki should continue in therapy as recommended by their individual therapists. (/d. at 8.) Ms. Miles’ summarized her final recommendations as follows: “Itis the opinion of this writer that the children’s best interests are served by granting sole legal and physical custody to their father, Mr. Rucki. Ms. Grazzini-Rucki has demonstrated a willful, consistent disregard for the court process and has refused to ‘comply with multiple court orders, This has resulted in an inability to gauge her level of functioning and unknown mental health issues. Ms. Grazzini-Rucki has made mul allegations of abuse of Mr. Rucki; however this reporter could find no substantiations by the professionals involved of said abuse. In addition, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki has displayed a pattern of this behavior by making continuing allegations about any professional involved in this case that questions her statements, to include therapists, assessors, Guardians ad Litem, relatives, attorneys, and the judicial officer presiding over this case. In order to ‘ensure the emotional safety of the children, this reporter's recommendation is that the children’s contact with their mother be supervised until she successfully addresses her mental health,” (Id.) 5. The Best Interests of the Children, In determining custody, the best interests of the children and the joint custody factors have been considered pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd, 1(@) and are outlined below: a, The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to custody. Respondent seeks sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children, Petitioner refused to participate in Ms. Miles’ investigation and never expressed a custody preference to 32MSs, Miles, However, it is elear from the actions of Petitioner's current attorney that Petitioner seeks custody of the minor children. ‘Ata previous time in these proceedings, Petitioner indicated that she desired Respondent to have sole physical custody ofall five children, Ms, Friedrich testified that while she was still the Guardian ad Litem on the case, in the fall of 2012, Petitioner indicated to her that she wanted to give physical custody of the children to Respondent, Petitioner informed Ms, Friedrich that she wanted to share legal custody with Respondent and that she wanted Respondent to have sole physical custody of all five of the children. Ms. Friedrich testified that during an appointment with Dr. Paul Reitman in August 2012, Petitioner called Ms, Friedrich and asked when Respondent would pick up the children, Ms. Friedrich also testified that shortly after Petitioner's meeting with Dr. Reitman, Ms. Friedrich received at least one voicemail message from Petitioner asking her when somebody was going to pick up the children. Petitioner stated in the message that Respondent was going to have sole physical custody and that someone needed to pick up the children. Ms, Friedrich testified that during Petitioner's meeting with Dr, Reitman, Petitioner requested that the children be placed in the sole physical custody of Respondent, but Petitioner also made sexual abuse allegations against Respondent during this meeting. Ms. Friedrich testified that she was concemed about these two irreconcilable pieces of information and that the parties’ attorneys, Ms. Henry and Ms. Elliott, began talking to their clients about Petitioner's proposal. The parties later reached an agreement regarding temporary custody that was entered on the record through a conference call. (See Sept. 7, 2012 Order.) Ms, Friedrich testified that the parties entered into a stipulation that the children would be placed in the care of a third party, the children’s paternal aunt, Tammy Love. (Id) 33,Based on actions taken by Petitioner and her counsel, it is apparent that at this time Petitioner requests custody of the children and no longer desires Respondent fo have physical custody of the children. Therefore, both parties are requesting custody of the minor ehildren, b. ‘The reasonable preference of the child, if the Court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference, ‘Nico (age 17) has expressed to Ms, Miles and to Dr. Gilbertson that he does not wish to see Petitioner at this time, Dr, Gilbertson stated that Nico was angry with his mother over actions she has taken, Dr. Gilbertson testified, however, that Nico seemed receptive to his suggestions to reach out to his mother and to have a relationship with her. Dr, Gilbertson testified that Nico chose to live with a friend during the summer of 2012 to stay out of “the war” or the conflict that was the Rucki family, Dr. Gilbertson described Nico as mature, resilicnt, and rational and as someone who has a reliable big picture view of the family. As described above, the parties’ oldest girls, Samantha (age 15) and Gianna (age 13), have been allegedly missing since April 19, 2013. Following their disappearance, the Court received two letters from these girls attached to a court petition from Petitioner which stated that they wanted to live with their mother, Samantha and Gianna have not fully participated in any reunification therapy or counseling, Dr. Gilbertson testified that the two youngest children, Nia (age 12) and Gino (age 10), ‘were more ambivalent about expressing a custody preference. Dr. Gilbertson testified that Nia and Gino's responses were more typical of the type of responses he sees from children in divorce cases, Dr. Gilbertson testified that even in high conflict divorce cases, children are typically ambivalent about how they feel about their parents, Dr, Gilbertson testified that it is rare when he sees a child who says one parent is all good or all bad. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he is suspicious of the source of that information when he hears that from a child. 34‘The Court is hesitant to give weight to the children’s custody preferences in this matter given the severe parental alienation that has occurred in this case and other competing influences and the fact that neither parent has had primary custody of the children in the past year. ‘Therefore, the Court notes the children’s preferences for the record, but is not affording them ‘weight in the final determination of custody in this matter, The child’s primary caretaker. AL trial, Petitioner testified that she has been the primary caretaker of the children since they were born. Petitioner testified that she would take leave from her employment as a flight attendant so that she could stay home with the children. Petitioner testified that she did ninety. nine percent of the cate of the children. Petitioner testified that she completely ran the home and did all the cleaning, all the cooking, all the laundry, and all the shopping, When Mr, Jerabek asked Petitioner if she believes that Respondent did approximately one percent of the care, Petitioner stated that she would not answer the question, Respondent testified that he was involved in every aspect of his children’s lives, Respondent testified that he changed diapers, cooked for the children, and was involved in the children’s activities as they grow older. Respondent testified that he coached the children’s hockey teams and was on the hockey board. Respondent testified that as a flight attendant, Petitioner would typically be gone for three to four days a week on trips. Respondent testified that Petitioner's flight schedule has always been the same, Respondent testified that he has always run a trucking business out of the home. Respondent testified that he cared for the children when Petitioner was not home, Respondent testified that they had a babysitter for a year ‘or two to care for the children during the day while he was working, but that he was always there in the evenings. Respondent testified that the vibe in the home was very chaotic when Petitioner 35‘was home but that it would ealm down when she was at work. Respondent testified that Petitioner denied him parenting time after the Judgment and Decree was entered in May 2011. Respondent testified thatthe first time that he had any contact ‘with his youngest children was in court in February 2013 when Dr. Gilbertson facilitated a seeting with Respondent and the children following a court heating. Respondent testified that the parties reached an agreement that Tammy Love, the children’s patemal aunt, would temporarily care for the children after Petitioner indicated in August 2012 that she wanted Respondent to have physical custody of the children, Respondent testified that Ms, Love moved into the Ireland Place home because the parties wanted the ildren to have as much stability as possible throughout this transition. The parties subsequently stipulated that Ms, Love and Nancy Olson, the children’s maternal aunt, would share temporary Joint legal and physical custody of the children. (Oct. 3, 2012 Stip. and Order for Custody.) Since September 2012, all five of the parties” children have been primarily in the care of their maternal and paternal aunts, subject to parenting time with the parties directed by Dr. Gilbertson, Nico has lived with Ms. Love at the Ireland Place home since the initial custody transfer on September 7, 2012 and continues to reside with her. Samantha, Gianna, Nia, and Gino lived with Nancy Olson from September 7, 2012 until April 19, 2013. On April 19, 2013, custody of the two older girls, Samantha and Gianna, was transferred from Ms, Olson to Ms. Love, but they eloped from her care as previously deseribed above. These two girls have been missing since April 19, 2013. On April 26, 2013, custody of Gino and Nia was transferred to Ms. fe with her in the Ireland Place home. Love, and they continue to r 36Respondent has been secing Nico, Nia, and Gino frequently, with the permission of Dr Gilbertson, Respondent has resumed a normal parent/child relationship with them. Ms. Love testified that she has bowed out and that Respondent has taken the primary parental role with respect to the three children, During the summer, Respondent was with the children all day long while Ms. Love was at work, Dr, Gilbertson testified that Respondent comes over to the Ireland Place home frequently and that the children have also visited him at the Flagstaff property where he is currently residing. Respondent testified that he is ready, willing, and able to take all five children into his care at the present time. Respondent testified that itis likely that Samantha and Gianna will need social services and counseling to help them transition into Respondent’s home ‘when they are retumed to his care. ‘The Court finds that this fector favors neither party. Both parties provided significant care to the children throughout the marriage, but neither party has been the primary caregiver for the children in the past year. However, the Court notes that Respondent hes performed the role of primary caregiver of three of the children since the summer of 2013, and the Guardian ad Litem ‘and the children’s therapist confirm that it is going very well. 4. The intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child, ‘The current Guardian ad Litem never had an opportunity to observe Petitioner with the children since Petitioner refused to cooperate with Ms. Miles in her investigation. Reports from the prior Guardian ad Litem indicate that the children had an intimate relationship with Pt and that they were bonded to her. Petitioner testified at trial that she had a very intimate relationship with her children and that she was very involved in all aspects of their lives. Ms. Miles reports that Respondent has resumed a good parent/children relationship with ‘Nico, Nia, and Gino, Dr. Gilbertson testified that Nia was initially slow to warm up to 7Respondent but that they have made immense progress over the summer. Dr. Gilbertson testified that Respondent had a break-through moment with Nia as she held onto her father’s hand as they walked through the State Fair together this summer. Respondent testified that all three children are comfortable in his home at the present time, Respondent has not had any contact with ‘Samantha and Gianna Rucki since they eloped from Ms. Love’s care. . The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s hest interests. ‘Throughout these proceedings, the Court has been very concemed about actions that Petitioner has taken which have been contrary to the children’s best interests. Since this action ‘was commenced, Petitioner has put the children in the middle of the parties’ divorce and has intentionally alienated the children from Respondent. At the trial, the Court received evidence and heard testimony that on October 6, 2011, Petitioner removed Samantha from schoo! and had ‘Samantha assist her in distributing blank checks from Respondent's business and other documents containing Respondent's banking information and social security number around the Macy's parking garage in downtown Minneapolis. (See Trial Exhibits # 8 and 9.) Kim Sumner, the general manager at the Macy’s parking garage in downtown Minneapolis, testified that on October 6, 2011, he found approximately 60 checks from Rucki Trucking in the Macy's parking garage. Respondent introduced into evidence the Macy’s parking ramp security video from that day, which shows a woman and her daughter in the elevator and lobby area of the parking map and later exiting the parking garage in a black suburban. (See Trial Exhibit #10.) The security vvideo shows the daughter carrying a stack of papers in the elevator. The security video shows the daughter tossing documents out of the passenger side of the vehicle as they exited the parking ramp, Respondent identified the individuals in the video as Petitioner Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki 38and their daughter Samantha Ruck, Respondent identified the vehicle in the video as his ‘company’s 2007 Suburban, Respondent testified that the handwriting on the documents looked like Samantha’s handwriting, Respondent testified that Samantha should have been in schoo! that day, Respondent testified that after the Macy’s incident, he received phone calls from people ‘who had found Rucki Trucking checks and Respondent’s banking information and social security number from all over the twin cities area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, and Lakeville, At the trial, Petitioner never refuted any of these allegations. The Court finds it appalling that Petitioner would pull her daughter out of school and have her participate in an attempt to financially ruin her father. This conduct is clearly contrary to the children’s best interests and casts serious doubt on Petitioner’s judgment and parenting skills. ‘The record indicates that Petitioner has spoken to the children about adult issues and put them in the middle of the parties’ divorce, Dr. Gilbertson testified that it is concerning to him ‘when children speak of adult topics that are beyond their years. Samantha spoke to Dr. Gilbertson about the concept of parental alienation and told him that she had researched it on the internet and that it does not exist. Dr. Gilbertson testified that the children stated that their father is morally flawed, is a womanizer, drinks too much, and is hiding money. (See Trial Exhibit #6, .2.) Ms, Friedrich reported that all five children previously presented very similar stories/scripts regarding their concerns about their father, (See Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan. 19, 2012, p.8.) Ms. Friedrich reported that the children gave responses to her questions that appeared to be coached by Petitioner. When Petitioner canceled a trip to California after receiving permission from the Court to take the children on this trip, Petitioner and all three of the children told the Guardian that it “it just didn’t work out” without providing any details. (fd. at 12.) During this interview, Ms. Friedrich observed Nia kick Gino under the table when he 39started to say things that she did not want him to say. Respondent and Ms. Love testified that they do not believe that Petitioner is stable or that ‘she can offer the children a stable environment. Respondent testified that Petitioner and her supporters are irrational and do not have any regard for the law or what is in the best interests of the children. Respondent indicated to Ms. Miles that he is very concemed for his safety and for the safety of his children. Respondent testified that his home has been vandalized twice. Respondent testified that he has a video of Petitioner’s boyfriend's son vandalizing bis property. Respondent testified that Petitioner's boyftiend’s son broke into his garage and slashed all of the tires on his Chevelle and also slashed the tires on his Suburban, As the above examples illustrate, Petitioner has taken many actions which cast doubt on Petitioner's ability to look out for her children’s best interests, Petitioner has put the children in the middle of this divorce, has involved the children in adult issues, has alienated the children from Respondent, and has failed at every opportunity to assist the children with therapy and counseling. The Court also has concerns about the children’s safety in Petitioner's care. On the contrary, the Court believes that Respondent can effectively recognize and advocate for his children’s best interests. There is no evidence that Respondent has put the children in the middle of the parties’ litigation and disputes. Respondent has completed parenting coaching, Respondent has followed through with the recommendations of the Guardians ad Litem and has complied with the orders of this Court, Based on the testimony of the Guardians ad Litem and Dr. Gilbertson, the Court does not have any concerns regarding Respondent's parenting at this time, ‘The Court finds that this factor strongly favors Respondent, f ‘The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community. Nico, Nia, and Gino have made remarkable progress in reuniting with their father and 40adjusting to his care. Ms. Love and Dr. Gilbertson have been pivotal in the success of the transition for all three of those children. Ms. Miles" report indicates that Nico, Nia, and Gino are doing well and have exhibited an “incredible positive change” in their father’s care. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p. 7.) Ms. Miles” last report was completed on August 29, 2013, right before school started, so the Court does not have updated information on the children’s progress in school, Her report indicates that Nico was excited to start his senior year of high schoo! and plans to attend college after high school. Ms. Miles? report indicates that Nia is taking honors classes in middle school and that many of her friends will be in her classes. Nia appeared very comfortable around her father, Ms, Miles’ report indicated that Gino was not excited for school to start, but that he was engaged and active in. other activities, All three children continue to attend their same schools and reside in their same community. The Court has no information on the whereabouts of Samantha and Gianna Rucki. 8 The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity. ‘Tammy Love, the children’s paternal aunt, testified that in September 2012, it was agreed. that the children needed someone to stabilize their environment and that she was asked to move info the Ireland Place home in an effort to do that, As previously described in the above sections of this Order, the situation was chaotic when Ms. Love first arrived at the Ireland Place home. ‘When she arrived at the home on September 7, 2012, the home was locked and she had no means of gaining access to the home. Ms. Love testified that Samantha, Gianna, Nia, and Gino children ran away from her care, Ms. Love also learned that the parties’ oldest son, Nico, had been living with a friend during the summer due to Petitioner's behavior and the unsuitable living condition of the home. Ultimately, police officers located the children and a crisis counselor helped 41facilitate allowing the four youngest children to go home with Nancy and Jay Olson, P¢ sister and brother-in-law. Following the events on September 7, 2012, the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order for Custody in which the parties agreed that Naney Olson would be granted temporary joint legal and joint physical custody along with Tammy Love. (Oct. 3, 2012 Stip. and Order for Custody.) ‘The Stipulation provided that the four youngest children “ate doing well in [Ms. Olson's} care and have settled into a routine at her home” and that the best interests of the children would be served by awarding Ms, Olson and Ms. Love with temporary joint legal and joint physical custody of the children. (Zd.) As described above, Nico has lived with Ms. Love at the Ireland Place home sinee the initial custody transfer on September 7, 2012 and continues to reside with her. On April 19, 2013, custody of the two older girls, Samantha and Gianna, was transferred from Ms. Olson to Ms, Love, but they eloped from her eare and have been missing since April 19, 2013. On April 26, 2013, custody of Gino and Nia was transferred to Ms. Love, and they continue to reside with her in the Ireland Place home. ‘The Court has no evidence that Petitioner is capable of providing a safe and stable home ‘environment for the children, In fact, Petitioner's conduct and the testimony during the tial evidence the exact opposite. When Ms. Love arrived at the parties’ homestead pursuant to this Court's September 7, 2012 Order, the home was is significant disrepair. Respondent testified that the home was “a war zone” when Ms, Love moved into the home. Respondent testified that the walls were full of holes and writing and that there was garbage, filth, and food everywhere, Respondent testified that there were messages written on the walls by the girls. Respondent testified that the messages were very disturbing and it appeared as ifthe children were held 42hostage and trying to stay inspirational with messages of hope. Most of the appliances, ineluding the refrigerator, microwave, dryer, and dishwasher, were not working. Ms. Love testified that the ied that the condition of the home was home was very beaten up and full of trash. Ms. Love te: ‘so bad that she hired several cleaners to help her clean the home. Ms. Love testified that they gathered 30 bags of garbage from just the laundry room and kitchen area, Ms. Love testified that they had to re-carpet the house, Ms, Love testified that there were no signs of any of Petitioner's belongings in the home. Ms. Love testified that there was no furniture in the front two rooms of the house. Ms. Love testified that there were no dishes, silverware, or pots and pans in the house. Respondent was ultimately awarded ownership of the home after Petitioner failed to maintain the mortgage payments and allowed the home to be foreclosed upon. Respondent and Ms. Love have worked to provide Nico, Nia, and Gino with as much stability and continuity as possible given the circumstances. Nico, Nia, and Gino continue to live in the homestead with Ms. Love and continue to attend the same schools. Respondent has cleaned up and repaired the Ireland Place home, and the conditions of the home have been significantly improved, Since Apri] 26, 2013, all three children have lived with Ms. Love in a stable home environment, while seeing Respondent frequently at the dircetion of Dr. Gilbertson. h, The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home, ‘The Court has no information regarding Petitioner's current living situation. Petitioner has refused to disclose her physical residence despite multiple Court Orders ordering her to do 0. Petitioner claims to be homeless. It is believed that Petitioner is living with her boyfriend in Elko, Minnesota. Petitioner presents no permanent or stable home. Respondent’s home situation is stable, Respondent told Ms. Miles he plans to sell the Ireland Place home once it is fully repaired. Respondent plans to reside full-time with the 43children in the Flagstaff home, Respondent showed Ms. Miles the work he was doing on the Flagstaff home, including finishing bedrooms in the basement for the children. The Court finds that this factor favors Respondent. i ‘The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. ‘Concerns about Petitioner's mental health have been a central issue throughout these proceedings. Ms, Miles believes that Petitioner addressing her mental health is a key component in Petitioner having a healthy relationship with her children, Dr. Millenacker previously diagnosed Petitioner with a personality disorder with narcissistic and histrionic features. (See ‘Trial Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan, 19, 2012, p.13.) Dr. Millenacker recommended that Petitioner participate in individual therapy with a therapist who specialized in personality disorders. Petitioner has not followed through with individual therapy, despite multiple court orders ordering her to do so, Respondent described that he observed a slow deterioration of Petitioner's mental health particularly since they began having problems with her family in 2006. Respondent previously indicated that the parties spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on litigation involving a trust dispute with Petitioner's family. Respondent testified that he observed that something changed in Petitioner when her mother died in 2008 and that her mental state has just been getting worse. Respondent testified that he believes that Petitioner is not capable of dealing with reality or capable of dealing with the children anymore. Respondent (estified that Petitioner is unstable and that he is aftaid of her, Respondent testified that Petitioner's emotions are out of check and that she does not grasp reality. Respondent testified that he does not believe that Petitioner understands what she has done to her family and how she uses her children, Respondent testified that Petitioner is out of control and has taken an unwarranted path of destruction that has no basis 44in reality. Respondent testified that a lot of what has occurred in this matter has been highly theatrical, chaotic, and docs not make sense. Collateral sources support Respondent's allegations that Petitioner is mentally unstable. (/d. at 11.) Respondent completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. Millenacker and has followed ‘through with her recommendations, Dr. Millenacker diagnosed Respondent with an adjustment disorder and recommended that Respondent remain law abiding and follow the recommendations of Moxie, Inc. regarding reunification therapy with the children, Ms, Miles” report indicates that Respondent has also completed or cooperated with: a chemical dependency evaluation through River Ridge treatment center; reunification therapy at Moxie, Ine.; anger management with Bob Kelly; and parenting coaching with Judy Sherwood. The Court does not have concerns regarding Respondent's mental health at this time, Nico is healthy and is in therapy and doing well. Nico’s therapist, Mark Gremmell, indicates that he sees “absolutely no trace of psychosis or significant mental health issues —he seems like a very put together kid who will be very successful.” (See ‘Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p. 6.) Nia is healthy and is in therapy and doing well. In her therapy with Molly Croni has opened the door recently to discuss and question her mother’s situation and mental health; however, Ms. Cronin reports remaining neutral on this topic at this time. (Jd) Gino has DiGeorge Syndrome, which compromises his immune system and includes some development delays. Gino also has asthma, Respondent is knowledgeable about Gino's health issues and is capable of providing Gino with the appropriate care. ‘The Court has no information regarding the health of Samantha and Gianne, When the children are Located, is likely that they will need some social services and counseling services to 45reunite with their siblings and their father. Respondent testified that he hopes that professionals, ‘can help to introduce them to the truth and reality of what has oceurred in theie family. Respondent testified that these children will likely need to be deprogrammed from the false {information that has been provided to them by Petitioner. J. ‘The capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection, and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the child’s culture, religion or ereed, if any. ‘Ms. Love testified that Respondent is kind, thoughtful and that he puts the children’s best interests first. The Court believes that Respondent has the capacity to provide the children with Jove and guidance and to support the children’s education. Respondent testified that Petitioner was a loving mother years ago but that diminished over time, Respondent testified that he does not believe that she is capable of dealing with children anymore. Respondent testified that Petitioner is curently a detriment to the children because she refuses to seek help. Respondent testified that Petitioner does not have the ability to make good decisions about the children and that she uses the children and puts them in highly volatile situations where children should not be involved. Respondent believes that Petitioner should have parenting time with the children in a protected environment and that Petitioner should not be alone with the children in her current state. ‘The Court believes that Petitioner was a loving mother to her children. However, Petitioner has put the children in the middle of the divorce and taken many actions that have not been in the children’s best interests. The evidence adduced at trial suggests that Petitioner knows Where her two missing children are and is actively involved in concealing them. These two girls have not attended school since April 19, 2013, If Petitioner does know where these children are, educi she clearly is not supporting th n or protecting their best interests. Once Petitioner 46addresses her mental health and the reality of this ease, Petitioner will hopefully be able to move forwaccl to develop a healthy relationship with her children, The Court finds that this factor favors Respondent, Kk. The child’s cultural background, ‘The Court did not hear any information regarding the children’s cultural background. | The effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic abuse, as defined in § $18B.01 that has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual, whether or not the individual alleged to have committed domestic abuse is or ever ‘was a family or household member of the parent; Potitioner has alleged that Respondent abused Petitioner and the children during their ‘marriage. The Guardians ad Litem appointed to this file found no substantiation of said abuse, (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p. 6.) The Court finds that this factor does not apply. m, Except in eases in which a finding of domestic abuse as defined in Minn, Stat. § 518B.01 has been made, the disposition of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the other parent with the child, Since May 2011, Petitioner has consistently refused to encourage the children’s relationship with Respondent, Respondent testified that Petitioner has portrayed her hostility ‘toward him to the children and has alienated the children from him, Examples of Pe mner"s alienating conduct have been described above. On August 25, 2011, the Court ordered that the parties and the children participate in reunification therapy with Moxie, Ine. (Aug. 25, 2011 Order.) After it became clear that Petitioner was not supportive and failed to cooperate with any of the reunification efforts, Moxie reported that the ease was not appropriate for reunification therapy at their office. Peggy Cottrell, the children’s therapist at Moxie, reported that she has never met with such profoundly wary and guarded children in all of her years of experience 47doing reunification therapy. (See Trial Exhibit #12A, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jan. 19, 2012, p.18.) The therapists reported that in cases where reunification therapy is not supported by both parents, reunification therapy ean be emotionally harmful to the children and risk further entrenching their negative opinions of the rejected parent, (d.) The therapists believed that a child safety center would be more appropriate for beginning the reunification process. (Jd.) In January 2012, the Court ordered the family to begin reunification efforts through Genesis WChildeen’s Safety Center. At the first session, the children would not speak or make eye contact with Respondent. At the second session, Nico did wot appear, and the four youngest children were upset and left after fifteen minutes. (See Trial Exhibit #12, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Apr. 30, 2012, p.8.) On March 23, 2012, the Court ordered the appointment of a parenting consultant, Dr Karen Irvin, The parents were ordered to comply with the recommendations of the parenting, consultant, Dr. Irvin reported that the case was not appropriate for a parenting consultant and recommended that Petitioner participate in parent coaching with her. (Jd.) She also recommended that Respondent participate in parenting coaching with Judy Sherwood, (Id. at 9.) Petitioner has not followed through with her parenting coaching with Dr. Irvin, and this issue was the subject of several contempt hearings. Respondent has completed his recommended parenting coaching with Judy Sherwood. The children only began to successfully reunite with Respondent after they had been placed in the care of their aunts and removed from Petitioner's alienating behaviors. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guasdian ad Litem dated Aug, 29, 2013, p. 7.) Nico, Nia, and Gino are reportedly doing quite well in Respondent's care. 48A the tral, Petitioner testified that Respondent “should not be the pavent.” When Mr, Jerabek asked Petitioner whether she had any concems regarding Respondent's parenting, Petitioner stated that she had “too many to name” but refused to state what specifically those cconcems were. Later, Petitioner testified that she would facilitate parenting time with Respondent, When Mr. Jerabek asked her what his parenting time should look like, Petitioner stated that she could not answer. At this time, the Court has little confidence that Petitioner ‘would encourage the children to have any relationship with Respondent, Petitioner has also failed to follow most of this Court's orders with respect to the children. Respondent indicated that he does want the children to see Petitioner and have a relationship with her; however, he would like to see Petitioner receive help before she has, unsupervised parenting time with the children, ‘The Court believes that Respondent will ‘encourage the children’s relationship with Petitioner when she is healthy and he will follow the Court's orders regarding parenting time, The Court finds that this factor favors Respondent, a Evidence of false allegations of child abuse. Minn, Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1a, provides that the Court shall consider evidence of reporting false allegations of child abuse (a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.507) in determining the best interests of the children, Minn. Stat. § 609.507 states that: “{a] person is guilty of misdemeanor who: (1) informs another person that a person has committed sexual abuse, physical abuse, or neglect of « child, . .. ; (2) knows that the allegation is false or is without reason to believe that the alleged abuser committed the abuse or neglect; and (3) has the intent that the information influence a child custody hearing.” In this case, Petitioner has not been charged with a violation of Minn, Stat. § 609.507. However, Petitioner made allegations of sexual abuse against Respondent and Dr. Gilbertson 49which were not substantiated, Petitioner never reported any of the allegations against Respondent until after the divorce was initiated, In addition, Petitioner made the sexual assault allegations against Respondent while simultaneously requesting that he take immediate custody of all five children. These two irreconcilable positions reflect negatively on the veracity of Petitioner's allegations. In her report, Ms. Miles’ stated: “Ms. Grazzini-Rucki has made multiple allegations of abuse of Mr, Rucki; however this reporter could find no substantiations by the professionals involved of said abuse, In addition, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki has displayed a pattern of this behavior by making continuing allegations about any professional involved in this case that questions her statements, to include therapists, assessors, Guardians ad Litem, relatives, attorneys, and the judicial officer presiding over this case.” (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p.8.) Petitioner also claimed that Dr. James Gilbertson was soxually inappropriate with her children. Petitic ner filed a complaint against Dr. Gilbertson with the Board of Psychology. Dr. Gilbertson testified that he was never alone with any of the children and that fe never acted inappropriately with any of the children. ‘The Court has not received any evidence to support Petitioner's very serious allegations, and none of the professionals appointed to this case found any substantiation of these allegations. 0, Petitioner’s complaints against the professionals and other parties. Petitioner has refused to work with, has made false allegations, and has filed complaints and lawsuits against every professional that has been appointed on this case. In addition to the allegations Petitioner made against Dr, Gilbertson and Respondent detailed above, Petitioner hos also made allegations against all the other professionals appointed to this case and other parties. Petitioner filed complaints against both the former and current Guardians ad Litem, Julie Friedrich and Laura Miles. Petitioner's allegations against Julie Friedrich have already been detailed above, On June 3, 2013, Ms. Miles received a letter dated May 31, 2013 from Petitioner. 50‘The letter indicated that Petitioner had received Ms. Miles” letter and was “rejecting” the appointment of Ms, Miles’ as the Guardian ad Litem. In addition, she “demanded” her withdrawal within ten days, otherwise threatening to join Ms. Miles as a defendant in a fraud lawsuit that she initiated against others. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Jun, 3, 2013, p.3.) After Laura Miles issued her report with temporary recommendations, Petitioner complained that the recommendations were made without meeting with her; however, Petitioner continually refused to meet with Ms, Miles. Petitioner has filed at least one state court lawsuit against various parties involved in this case. (See “Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki v. David Victor Rucki, Lisa M, Elliott, Julie Friedrich, Dr. James Gilbertson, Dr. Paul Reitman, Laura Milos, ct al.”, Court File No, I9HA-CV-13- 2770.) Judge Pattice K.. Sutherland dismissed Petitioner’s Complaint after she failed to appear at the hearing on August 12, 2013. (Id.) Petitioner submitted a document stating that she did not aecept or agree with Beth Harrington as the custody evaluator. (See Trial Exhibit #2.) Petitioner filed a Complaint against Nia’s counselor, Molly Cronin, with the Board of Psychology. Ms, Cronin reported to Ms, Miles that she has received multiple letters and statements from Petitioner alleging that she is “being reported to the board of committing ‘multiple acts of fraud” among other things. (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated June 3, 2013, p.6.) Petitioner has made false allegations against the children’s temporary custodian, Tammy Love. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Love had her own children taken from her because she was abusive and that she was a drug addict and an alcoholic, Ms. Love testified that none of these allegations were true. SIPetitioner has made allegations and complaints against nearly everybody who has had. any involvement with this file, and the list of complaints noted above is not exhaustive, Given Petitioner's actions to date, the Court is extremely fearful for the well-being of the children. It is likely that the children, especially Samantha and Gianna when they are discovered, will need significant counseling and reunification therapy services. Nico, Nia, and Gino will also likely need to continue with therapy to assist them in coping with all ofthe events that have occurred in this matter, With this history, the Court is very concerned that Petitioner is compromising the children’s ability to obtain necessary services in their community. The Court finds that Petitioner's extensive history of making false allegations calls into question her judgment and parenting skills, 6. Joint Custody Factors, The Court has also considered the Joint Custody Factors ‘outlined in Minn, Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2, and finds as follows: a, ‘The ability of parents to cooperate in the rearing of their child, ‘The parties have been unable to cooperate regarding any issues in this case. Petitioner has, failed to cooperate with most orders, even those she originally agreed to, and she has failed to even the smallest and simplest requests throughout this case. Petitioner refused to comply cooperate with any of the professionals appointed in this case. The Court has little confidence that the parties could cooperate in making decisions involving the children. b. Methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents’ willingness to use those methods, ‘The parties have no methods in place for resolving dlsputes, and Petitioner has demonstrated her unwillingness to resolve any disputes, c. Whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child’s upbringing. 52.‘The Court finds that both Petitioner and Respondent should have parenting time with the children and should be involved in their children’s lives. However, at this time, the Court, bolieves that it would be detrimental to allow Petitioner to have custody of the children based on her actions to date, Ms. Miles, Respondent, and Ms. Love testified that they are fearful that Nico, Nie, and Gino will be abdueted by Petitioner or an agent of hers. Based on Petitioner’s actions, the Court is very concerned that Petitioner would abduct or conceal the children if she is awarded custody of the children. For these reasons, the Cour finds that itis in the children’s best interests that Respondent have sole authority over the children’s upbringing and be awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of the children, d. Whether domestic abuse, as defined in § 518B.01, has occurred between the parents, Petitioner testified that Respondent was abusive to her during their marriage. Respondent has consistently denied that any abuse occurred. Only since this dissolution action began has Petitioner filed multiple Petitions for an Order for Protection against Respondent on behalf of herself and on behalf of the parties’ minor children, All of these Petitions have been denied, with the exception of one where Respondent agreed to its issuance. (Court File No. 19AV-FA-11- 1760.) That Order has since been dismissed. There is no current Order for Protection in place between the parties. Petitioner filed a Petition for an Order for Protection against Respondent on June 6, 2011 (Coutt Pile No. 19AV-FA-11-1760,) At the June 22, 2011 hearing, Petitioner was represented by Samantha Gemberling, Esq. and Respondent was represented by Lisa Elliott, Esq. Respondent did not object to the issuance of the Order for Protection, and the Order for Protection was issued 53for a petiod of two years, On January 27, 2012, Petitioner moved to dismiss this Order for Protection, which was granted by this Court, Petitioner fied a Petition for an Order Protection against Respondent on behalf of the parties’ minor children on June 24, 2011. (Court File No, 19AV-FA-11-1940). Petitioner was represented by Neomi Garfinkel, Esq, and Respondent was represented by Lisa Elliott, Esq. The Petition was denied by Judge Thomas W. Bibus following a hearing on June 30, 2011. Petitioner filed a Petition for an Order Protection against Respondent on June 22, 2012 (Court File No. 19AV-PA-12-1818,) Petitioner was represented by Jennifer Evans, Esq. and Respondent was represented by Lisa Elliott, Esq. The Petition was denied by this Court following a hearing on July 20, 2012. During the September 11-12, 2013, trial, Petitioner's attomey indicated that Petitioner had filed for a Petition for a Harassment Restraining Order against Respondent in Scott County. Respondent filed a Petition for an Order for Protection and Harassment Restraining Order, both of which were denied by this Court without hearing on July 12, 2012. (Court File Nos. 19AV-FA-12-2029; I9AV-CV-12-2030.) ‘There are no current Orders for Protection or Harassment Restraining Orders in place between these parties. Petitioner has claimed that Respondent was abusive to her during their marriage, but she never filed for any Orders for Protection during the marriage. Only after these divorce proceedings were initiated did Petitioner begin filing for Orders for Protection against Respondent and on behalf of the parties’ children. Although Respondent did agree to the issuance of one Order for Protection, which was later voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner, this Court is not aware of any Court making findings that acts of domestic abuse have occurred between the partis, 34Based on the foregoing findings related to the best interests and joint custody factors, the Court finds that itis in the best interests of the children that Respondent be awarded sole physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ five minor children. The Court further finds that it is in the best interests of the minor children that Petitioner have supervised parenting time with the children at a child safety center. Parenting Time, Minn, Stat, Ann. § 518.175, subd. 1(a) states that “[i}f the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time with a parent is likely to endanger the child’s physical ‘or emotional health or impair the child's emotional development, the court shall restrict parenting time with that parent as to time, place, duration, or supervision and may deny parenting time entirely, as the circumstances warrant,” ‘Atthis time, the Court finds that itis likely that the children’s physical or emotional health will be endangered if Petitioner is allowed unrestricted visitation. As detailed above, Petitioner has engaged in conduct to alienate the children from Respondent and has put the children in the middle of the parties’ disputes throughout this case. The Court is very concerned ‘that if Petitioner is allowed unsupervised parenting time with the children, she will engage in conduct to attempt to destroy their relationship with Respondent and will undo the progress that the children have been made in their reunification therapy and individual therapy. All of the professionals in this case expressed concern about Petitioner’s mental health and her failure to grasp reality. Until Petitioner addresses her mental health, the Court is concerned that Pe will exert an undue negative influence on the children and will endanger their emotional development. ‘The Court is also very concerned that Petitioner would abduct the children if she is allowed unsupervised parenting time with them. The Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, and Ms. 35Love all testified that they believe that Petitioner is harboring the two missing children and they all expressed concer that Petitioner would abduct the other three children if she is allowed unsupervised parenting time with them, For all these reasons, in addition to all the other factors detailed above, the Court believes that Petitioner having supervised parenting time is in the children’s best interests. 8 Petitioner’s Income, Petitioner is employed by U.S. Airways as a flight attendant. At the August 28, 2012 trial, the parties stipulated that Petitioner was able to eam $5,000.00 per month. At the September 11~12, 2013 trial, Petitioner would not state what her income is at the present time, Respondent presented copies of Petitioner's paystubs from U.S. Airways, which was received into evidence as Tria] Exhibit #1, The Court calculated Petitioner's approximate gross monthly income by averaging the amounts from the last five most recent paystubs provided to the Court, Pay Period Total Pay 5/5/13 - 5/30/13 $1,818.13 6/13 ~ 6/73 $1,968.52 6/15/13 — 6/28/13 $1,768.13 TN3~TSA3 $1,918.06 TASH3 ~ 7/30/13 $2,056.71 ‘Average biweekly pay ‘$1,905.91 Average gross monthly income = $1,905.91 / 2 = $952.96 per week x 4.33 = $4,126 Based on the above, the Court finds that Petitioner eams a gross monthly income of approximately $4,126.00 per month, 9. Respondent's Income, Respondent js employed by Kane Contracting and is, capable of earning a gross monthly income of approximately $5,000.00 per month, At the August 28, 2012 tral, the partes stipulated that Respondent was able to earn $5,000.00 per 56month, At the September 11-12, 2013 trial, Respondent testified that his income has not changed, 10, Child Care Expenses. There are no child care expenses for the children, 11, Health Insurance. Petitioner has health insurance coverage available for the minor children through her employment. Pétitioner was previously ordered to maintain the health insurance coverage for the children. (Nov. 22, 2011 Order.) Trial Exhibit #1 shows that the current cost of the health insurance coverage for the children is $50.00 per month. 12. Public Assistance. Neither party is receiving public assistance for or on behalf of the children at this time. B. Dakota County’s Position on Child Support and Arrears. James Donchower, Assistant Dakota County Attorney, appeared on the first day of tial, September 11, 2013, representing Dakota County on the child support issues only. Mr. Donehower was excused with permission of the Court om the first day of trial after presenting Dakota County’s position on the child support issues. Mr. Donehower requested that child support be ordered pursuant to the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines and that the Court address the issue of Respondent's child support arrears, Mr. Donehower informed the Court that Respondent owed Petitioner $18,467.00 in total child support arrears, The Court’s August 26, 2013 Order provided for an offset of $6,165.00 in favor of Respondent, leaving an unpaid arrears balance of $12,302.00 through August 31, 2013, The circumstances of this offset is detailed in this Court's April 19,2013 Order and Memorandum and its August 26, 2013 Order. Respondent remains responsible for the child support arrears of $12,302.00 owed to Petitioner. There has been no retroactive modification of child support or any forgiveness of arrearages. The Court must craft an equitable remedy to balance the parties’ current obligationsand arrears, The Court finds that it is fair and just to offset Respondent's child support arrears with Petitioner’s new child support obligation. The Court finds that iti in the best interests of the children to ensure they are being supported to order that Petitioner pay child support while at in Petitioner's monthly child support obligation to the same time providing a 20% reduc serve as a credit in a fixed amount toward Respondent's arrears, Respondent shall receive a child support arrears credit of $262.00 (20% of Petitioner's basic child support obligation of $1,310.00) toward his outstanding arrears balance of $12,302.00 for each month that Respondent receives his child support payment from Petitioner, If Respondent has an outstanding arrears balance by the time the children are emancipated, Pet 1er shall receive a judgment against Respondent for the remaining arrears balance, 14, Guideline Child Support. The Court finds that the financial and educational needs of the children can be met by payment of guideline child support. Effective December 1, 2013, Petitioner shall pay to Respondent $1,020.00 per month as and for besie child support ‘This child support obligation represents Petitioner's basie child support obligation of $1,310.00 per month, minus Respondent's medical support contribution of $28.00 per month, and minus Respondent’s child support arrears payment of $262.00 per month. Payment shall be made through automatic income withholding through Dakota County Child Support Enforcement. ‘The Child Support Calculator is attached hereto as Exhibit #1. 15. Credibility of the Parties, Pe ioner was evasive, obstructionistic, and inconsistent throughout her testimony. Petitioner refused to answer the simplest questions. For example, when Mr. Jerabek asked Petitioner whether she had any weaknesses or areas of improvement with regard to parenting, Petitioner stated that that she could not answer the question. After attempting to clarify the question three more times, Petitioner continued to refuse 58to answer the question, stating that she was not “admitting” to either one of the questions. Petitioner's evasive and nonresponsive answers persisted throughout her testimony. P testified that she was afraid to visit with her children at the Mall of America because she was concerned that this Court was going to issue “another court order for arrest.” This statement has no factual basis. There have been no orders issued for Petitioner's arrest, and Petitioner has never been arrested. Petitioner lied repeatedly to Julie Friedrich. Laura Miles directly observed this conduct, In a meeting with Petitioner and Julie Friedrich, Laura Miles witnessed Petitioner making statements and allegations, only for Petitioner to later state that she “never said thet.” (See Trial Exhibit #17, Report of Guardian ad Litem dated Aug. 29, 2013, p.7.) Alll of the professionals appointed on this file, including Dr. James Gilbertson, Laura Miles, Julie Friedrich, and Dr. Paul Reftman, have expressed an ongoing concern about Petitioner's failure to embrace reality and truth in this matter. The Court has serious reservations about Petitioner's credibility in this matter, ‘The Court found Respondent's testimony to be credible and consistent. When Respondent was asked about his missing children, Respondent appeared genuinely upset and concemed for his children and teared up. The Court has no reason to doubt the truthfulness of Respondent's testimony in this case and finds his actions and testimony believable and credible, Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Legal Custody of the Minor Children. Respondent is awarded sole legal custody of the minor children: Nico James Rucki, born June 22, 1996, currently age 17; 39‘Samantha Vietoria Rucki, born June 24, 1998, currently age 15; Gianna Jade Rucki, born ‘November 2, 1999, currently age 13; Nia Gabrielle Rucki, born September 25, 2001, currently age 12; and Gino Paolo Rucki, born January 20, 2003, currently age 10. 2. Physical Custody of the Minor Children, Respondent is immediately awarded sole physical custody of the minor children: Nico James Rucki, born June 22, 1996, currently age 17; Samantha Victoria Rucki, born June 24, 1998, currently age 15; Gianna Jade Rucki, born November 2, 1999, currently age 13; Nia Gabrielle Rucki, born September 25, 2001, currently age 12; and Gino Paolo Rucki, born January 20, 2003, currently age 10. 3. Missing Children. If either party has any information about the whereabouts of the parties? two oldest girls, Samantha and Gianna, they shall immediately disclose this information to the other party and to the appropriate authorities. 4. Parenting Time, Petitioner is awarded supervised parenting time with the children to occur at the Children’s Safety Center at the highest level of supervision. 2. Beginning immediately, Petitioner shall have supervised parenting time with the children once per month, Ifthe visits go well, they shall increase to once every two weeks, b, The costs of the Children’s Safety Center shall be paid by the Petitioner. ¢. — Ifat any time, the children’s therapist allege that the child(ren) are being harmed by visits with Petitioner, the visits with the affected child(ten) shall be suspended pending further recommendations of said therapist. d. Petitioner shall arrange and coordinate the time and dates of the parenting time by contacting Respondent.5, Psychological Evaluation, Petitioner shall complete a valid, updated psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations. The following collateral documents shall be provided to the evaluator prior to the completion of their report: notes and evaluation from Dr. Michelle Millenacker, notes fiom Moxie, Inc., letters and reports of Dr, James Gilbertson, and the reports of the Guardians ad Litem. A copy of the evaluation and recommendations if any shall be provided to Respondent's attorney. 6. Children’s Therapy. Upon the return of Samantha and Gianna Rucki to Respondent's custody, Respondent shall arrange for appropriate therapeutic services to assist in their reunification and integration into his home. Nico and Nia Rucki shall continue in therapy as recommended by their individual therapists 7. Child Support and Arrears. Effective December 1, 2013, Petitioner shall pay to Respondent $1,020.00 per month as and for basic child support. This child support obligation represents Petitioner’s basic child support obligation of $1,310.00 per month, minus Respondent’s medical support contribution of $28.00, and minus Respondent’s child support arrears payment of $262.00 per month. The Child Support Calculator is attached hereto as Exhibit #1, 2, The child support obligation shall continue in the full amount until the last child reaches the age of 18, reaches the age of 20 and is still attending secondary school, becomes emancipated, dies, or until further Order of the Court, Petitioner may request a modification of support upon the emancipation of a child if there are still minor children under the Order. ‘The support obligations shall be determined based upon the income of the pattics at the time modification is sought. 6b, Respondent shall receive said child support payments through automatic income withholding, The parties shall cooperate in providing Dakota County Child Support Collection Services with all of the necessary information required for automatic income withholding to take effect. ©. Respondent shall receive a child support arrears credit of $262.00 toward his outstanding arrears balance of $12,302.00 for each month that Respondent receives his child support payment from Petitioner. If Respondent has an outstanding arrears balance by the time the children are emancipated, Petitioner shall receive a judgment against Respondent for the remaining arrears balance, 8. Dependency Exemption, Respondent is awarded the right fo claim all the children as dependency exemptions on his federal and state income tax returns for tax year 2013 and following, Petitioner shall cooperate in signing all documents necessary to effectuate this paragraph. 9, Health Insurance. Petitioner has health insurance available for the benefit of the minor children and shall continue to maintain health insurance for the minor children, Petit shall provide the children’s health insurance information and cards to Respondent annually. 10, PICS and Unreimbursed Health and Dental Expenses. Any unteimbursed health, dental, orthodontia or eye care expenses incurred for the treatment or care of the minor children shall be paid according to the PICS percentages as follows: 55% by Respondent and 45% by Petitioner. Any bills shall be submitted to the other party within 30 days of receipt and paid by the other party within 30 days following receipt. 11. Appendix A, Appendix A is attached hereto and is incorporated into this Decree. 62Based upon the foregoing Conclusions of Law, the Court issues the following: ORDER LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. BY THE COURT: David y Judge of District Court I certify that the foregoing Conclusions of Law constitute the Judgment and Decree of the Court. DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Carolyn M. Reon ; Deputy Court Administrator / 6 Th AM Tod, 20/3. By: Dated this, 63ChitdSupportGuidelines Worksheet Page | of 1 Child Support Summary Paront A: Sandra Grazzin-Ruck Number of Joint Chitra Parent B: David Ruck Date: 1172472019 Parent A [Parent B) Basic Support Obligation Amount $1310 [$0 |Chitd Gare Support Obligation Amount $0 $0. Medical Suppor Obligation Amount so {928 Child Support Obligation Total Amount $1310 ($28 Share of Uninsured andlor Unreimbursed Medical Expenses a (55% Disclaimer: The child support quidelines worksheet, instructions, and calculator are for information and ‘educational use only and are not a guarantee of the amount of chi support that will be ordered. The results obtained are only as accurate as the information used, The actual child support order may be affected by other factors. The Court has the final authorly to determine tho amount ofthe chitd suppor order. If this worksheet ‘ig attached fo a court order, tis part of the Court's decision. This worksheet may or may not show the antount the Court decided to order. 1! the emount in the order is diffrent, that Is the amount to be paid. hittp://childsupportcalculator.dhs.state.mn.us/ChildSupportSummary.aspx?PrintableVersi... 11/24/2013,ChildSupportGuidelines Worksheet Page | of 2 Child Support Guidelines Worksheet Parent A: Sendra Grazzin/-Rucki IV-D Case Numbé Numbor of Joint Children: 5 Parent B: David Ruck Court File Number: 19AV-FA-11- Date: 11/24/2013 1273 [Parent A|[Parent B [Combined] Income ‘1a. Monihly income Received [$426 [$5000 _|- 4b. Chilifren)'s Social Seourity/Velerans’ [0 50 - Benefits Oerived From a Parent's Eligibility ‘1c. Potential Income so so 1d. Spousal Maintenance Orders Obligated to {$0 so be Paid ‘1e. Child Support Order(s) Obligatedtobe — |S0 so - Paid for Nonjoint Chitd(ren) “Tf Monily Gross Income (lattb+ie-td-40) [84126 _ [$6000 Adjustments 2a, Number of Nonjoint Chilc(ren) inthe [0 lo Home (Maximum number allowed is 2) ‘2b. Deduction for Nonjoint Child(ren) inthe 180 s0 Home ‘3 Parental Income for Determining Child [$4426 |86000 [$0126 ‘Support (PICS) 4, Percentage Share of Combined PICS [45% (55% 5, Combined Baste Support Obligation '6. Pro Rata Basic Support Obligation [$1310 - Basic Chitd Support 7. Basic Support Obligation After Parenting {$1310 - Obligation Expense Adjustment (if applicable) Child Caro Obligation “8, Child Care Support Obligation for Joint Children) Medical Support ‘92, Monthly Cost of Health Care Coverage for |$50 {$0 ‘Obligation Joint Child(ren) $2. Fro Rata Share of Heath Care Coverage [822 [828 | ots Appropriate Coverage 9c. Contribution to Health Care Coverage S28 eal ‘Qd. Monthly Cost of Dental Coverage for Joint [$0 so hité(ren) ‘Ge, Pro Rata Share of Dental Coverage Costs [$0 iso. ‘8f, Contribution to Dental Coverage ‘9g, Medical Support Obligation-Appropriate [$28 Coverage Available ‘No Appropriate 10. Medical Support Obligation for Public p= Insurance Available Coverage Uninsured/Unreimbursed 11, Share of Uninsured andlor Unreimbursed [45% [55% | Expenses ‘Medical Expenses 42, Nat Child Support Obligation sis10 fs28 Benefits Adjustment 13. Child(reny's Social SecurityhVeterans’ Benefits Derived from Parent's Elgibilly hitp://childsupportealculator.dhs.state,mn.us/ChildSupportGuidelines.aspx?PrintableVersi.... 11/24/2013ChildSupportGuidelines Worksheet Page 2 of 2 Computing aFinal 14, Total Child Support Obligation si3t0_ [$28 Obligation “6a. Monthly Gross income [$4126 |$6000 ‘Ability to Pay Calculation 16. Income Avalable for Suppor s2077_|sa861 18. Monthly Child Suppor Obligation -No [81310 [s2a_|— Adjustment Necessary 17, Amount of Reduction so (so Child Support Obligation 18, Medical Support Adjustment Original Obtigation ‘Amount of Reduction Now Obtigation 19. Child Care Support Original Obligation ‘Amount of Reduction New Obligation 20. Basie Support Original Obligation Amount of Reduction New Obligation 21. Monthly Child Support Obligation After Agjustment Presumptive Minimum — 22a. Presumplive Minimum Order for 1 or2 Joint Children 2b. Presumptive Minimum Order for 3or 4 oint Chitdren 22c. Presumptive Minimum Order for 6 or More Joint Children Disclaimer: The child support guidelines worksheet, Instructions, and calculator are for information and ‘educationel use only and are not a guarantee of tho amount of chid support thet wil be ordored. The resuils obtained are only a3 accurate as the information used. The actual child support order may bo affected by other factors, The Court has the final authonty to determina the amount ofthe chid support order. If this worksheet ‘is atfached to a court order, It's part of the Court's dacision. This workshaet may or may not show the amount the Court dacided to order: the amount inthe order is diferent, that isthe amount to Be pei. http://childsupportcalculator.dhs.state.mn.us/ChildSupportGuidelines.aspx?PrintableVersi... 11/24/2013APPENDIX A. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE PARTIES: z I, PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC AGENCY. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 5184.50, payments ordered for maintenance and support raust be paid to the Mimesota child support payment center as long es the person entitled to receive the payments is receiving or has applied for pubic assistance or hes applied for support ard maintenance collection services, Parents mall payments to: P.O. Box 64326, St, Paul, MN 55164-0326, Employers mail payments fo: P.O. Box 64306, St. Pal, MN 55168, II, DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS ~ A FELONY. A person may be charged with a felony who conceals a minor child or takes, obtains, retains, or fails to retum a minor child from or 0 the child's parent (or person with custodial or parenting time rights), according to Minnesota Statutes, section 609.26. A copy of that section is available ffom any court administrator. I, NONSUPPORT OF A SPOUSE OR CHILD - CRIMINAL PENALTIES. A porson who fails to pay court-ordered child support ot maintenance may be charged with a crime, which may include misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony charges, according to Minnesote Statues, section 609.375, A copy of that section is available From any district court clerk. IV. RULES OF SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, PARENTING TIME, ‘A. Payment of support or spousal maintenance is to be as ordered, andthe gi clothing, andthe like will not full the obligation, B. Payment of support mast be mado as it becomes due, and failure to secure or denial of parenting time is NOT an ‘excuse for nonpayment, but the agarieved party must seek relief through a proper motion filed withthe cour. ©. Nonpayment of support is not grounds to deny parenting time. Tho party entitled 1 receive support may apply for support and collection services, file contempt motion, or obtain a judgment as provided in Minnesota Statues, seotion 548.091. The payinent of support or spousel maintenance takes priority over payment of debts and othor obligations ‘A party who aocepts additional obligations of support does so with the full knowledge of the party's prior obligation under this proveeding, F, Child support oF maintenance is based on annual income, and it is the responsibility of a person with scesonal ‘employment to budget income so that payments are made throughout the year as ordered. GA Parental Guide to Making Child-Focused Parenting-Tine Decisions is availabe from any court administrator. H, The nonpayment of support may be enforced through the denial of student grants interception of state and federal tex refunds; suspension of driver's, resreationa, and occupational fieenses; referral to the department of revenue or private collection agencies; selzure of assets, including bank accounts and other asseis held by financial institutions, reporting o credit bureans; interest charging, income withholding, and contempt proceedings; and other enforcement methods allowed by lav. 1, The public suthority may suspend or resume collection of the amount allocated for child care expenses if the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section $184.40, subdivision 4, are met J. The public authority may remove or resume a medical support offset if the conditions of section $18A.41, subdivision 16, ae met. K, The public authority may suspend or resume interest charging on child support judgments ifthe conditions of section 548.001, subdivision fa, are met. ing of gifts or making purchases of food, Y. MODIFYING CHILD SUPPORT, If cither the obligor or obligee is laid off from employment or receives a pay reduction, child support may be modified, increased, or decreased. Any modification will only take effect when it is ordered by the court, and will only relate back to the time that a motion is filed, Either the obligor or obligee may file @ motion to modify child suppor, and may request the public agency for help. UNTIL A MOTION IS FILED, THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WILL CONTINUE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL, THE COURT IS NOT PERMITTED TO REDUCE SUPPORT RETROACTIVELY. VL PARENTAL RIGHTS FROM MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 518.17, SUBDIVISION 3. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE COURT: ‘A. Bach party has the right of access to, and to receive copies of, school, medical, dental, religious training, police reports, and other important records and information about the minor children, Each party has the right of access to information regarding health or dental insurance available to the minor children. Presentation ofa copy of this order FAM0t Stale ENG Revorit2 ‘vsumagourts govforme Paget of2to the custodian of a record or ther information about the minor children constitutes suficient authorization forthe release of the record or information tothe requesting party. B, Each party has the right to be informed by the other party as tothe name and address ofthe school of attendance of the minor children, Each party has the right to be informed by school officials about the children’s welfare, edieational progress and status, and to attend school and parent teacher confereness. ‘The school is not required to hold a separate conference foreach party. é C. Bech party has the right to be notified by the other party of an accident or serious illness of a minor chit, inching the name ofthe health eae provider and the place of treatment : D, Ech party has the right 10 be notified by the oxher party ifthe minor child is the vietim of an alleged erime, including the namie ofthe investigating law enforeement officer or agency. ‘There is no duty to notify ifthe party to be notified is the alleged perpetrator. E, Each party has the right of reasonabie access and telephone contact with the minor children. VIL, WAGE AND INCOME DEDUCTION OF SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE. Child support end / or spousal maintenance may be withheld from ineoms, with or without notice to the person obligated to pay, when the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section $184.53, have been met. A copy of that section is available from any court administrator Vili, CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR RESIDENCE, Unless otherwise ordered, each party shal notify the other party, the cour, andthe public euthority responsible for olleston, if applicable, ofthe fllowing infomation within ten days ‘of any change: residential and mailing addres, telephone umber, driver's cense number, social seurity number, and name, address, and telephone number ofthe employer. IX, COST OF LIVING INCREASE OF SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE. Basic support and / or spousal maintenanee may be adjusted every two years based upon a change in the cost of living (using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer price index Mpls. St Paul, forall urban consuuners (CPI-U), unless otherwise specified in this order) when the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section 518A,75, are met, Cost of living increases are compounded, A copy of Minnesota Statutes, section S18A.75, and forms necessary to request or contest a cost of living increase are available from any court administrator, X, JUDGMENTS FOR UNPAID SUPPORT; INTEREST. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 548,091: A. Ifa person fails to make a child support payment, the payment owed becomes a judgment against the person responsible to make the payment by operation of law on or after the date the payment is due, andthe person entitled (o receive the payment or the public agency may obtain entry and docketing ofthe judgnnent without notice tothe person responsible to make the pryment B, _Inferestbogins aceraing on a payment or instalment of child support whenever the unpaid amount due is grester than the coment suppor due XI, JUDGMENTS FOR UNPAID MAINTENANCE. A judgment for unpaid spousal maintenance may be centered and docketed when the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section 548091, are met. A copy of that section is available from any court administrator. XII, ATTORNEY FEES AND COLLECTION COSTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. A judgment for attorney feos and othor collection costs inourred in enforsing a child support ordor will bo entored against the Person responsible to pay support when the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, section S18A.735, are met. A copy of that Sesion and foms nessa fo requestor contest these atomey fees and collection cons are avaiable fom any cout trator, XIIL. PARENTING TIME EXPEDITOR PROCESS. On request of either party or on its ov motion, the court ‘may appoint a parenting time expeditor to resolve parenting time disputes under Minnesota Statutes, section 518.1751. A copy ofthat section and a description ofthe expeditr process is available fom any court edministatr, XIV. PARENTING TIME REMEDIES AND PENALTIES. Remedios and penalties for wrongful denial of parenting time are available under Minnesota Statutes, section 518.175, subdivision 6. These include compensatory parenting time; civil penalties; bond requirements; contempt; and reversl of custody. A copy ofthat subdivision and forms for requesting relief are available from any court administrator, FAMa01 Slate ENG Rovo7lig wwnuancouts gowionms Pogo 2012SIX-MONTH REVIEW HEARING REQUEST INSTRUCTIONS See Minn, Stat. § 518.1781 You have the right to request a review hearing within six months after entry of decree of dissolution or legal separation or order that establishes child custody, parenting time, or child support. Minn, Stat, § 518.1781 (2006), ‘The form you will need to.use to request'a review hearing is attached. Purpose of Review Hearing: The purpose of the review hearing is to make certain parties are following the court order regarding parenting time and the payment of child support. The review hearing IS NOT an opportunity to present any other issues or to ask the court to establish or modify custody, parenting time, or support. The court CAN ONLY review parenting time and child support provisions as already established in the order. IP there is no court ordered parenting time or child support, the court CANNOT create a parenting plan, establish parenting time, or child support at this review hearing. A petition or motion asking for any other type of relief from the court must be served and filed separately from this request. You may wish to contact an attomey or other legal services provider for more information regarding any other type of relief. Instructions to the Party Requesting the Review Hearing: If you decide to request a review hearing, you must do the following within six months from the date of entry of the order ot decrees + remove this cover page and complete the Request for Hearing form, Make enough copies of the form and have it served upon all parties, including the County Attomey’s Office, if the county child support enforcement egency (public authority) is « party inthe case. Keep copy of the form for yourself, NOTE: YOU CANNOT HAND DELIVER OR MAIL THE REQUEST FOR HEARING YOURSELF. YOU MUST HAVE SOMEONE ELSE OVER THE AGE OF 18 WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE HAND DELIVER OR MAIL THE REQUEST FOR HEARING FOR YOU ‘* xetum the completed original Request for Hearing form and a completed Affidavit of Service form to Court Administration in the county fisted at the top of the Request for Hearing form. Court Administration will schedule a hearing and send all parties notice of the hearing date, time, and location, Proof of Child Support Payment: The person wo pays support has to provide proof ofall the child support payments he/she made. If a party is receiving public assistance or child support enforcement services from the county child support enforcement agency, either party may request that the county child support enforcement agency provide payment information to the parties and the court. Any request made to the county ehild support enforcement agency must be made af least 14 days before the hearing date, Fawz0t Slate ENG Rev 11106 usw mncourts.govitosms Page t of?SIX-MONTH REVIEW HEARING REQUEST ‘See Minn, Stat. § 518.1781 State of Minnesota District Court County Judicial District 0 Ine the Marriage of: Plaintifi(s) Petitioner Request for Six Month Review Hearing vs/and Defendant / Respondent Intervenor Check the box or boxes that apply: Child Support 1D The other party isnot paying child support as ordered, (Briefly explain) Parenting Time provisions The other party has not complied with the court ordered parenting time as follows: Signature aie Print Name: Address: City/State/Zip: ‘Telephone: (__) Sieaee eee Attorney for: Dated: Fawz0t Slale ENG Rev 14/06 sw ennecuns gouerms Pago 2 of2State of Minnesota " D In Re the Marriage oft Judicial Districts Court File Number: ioe pee eee District Court Affidavit of Personal Service vys/and O Affidavit of Service By Mail ‘Defendant / Respondent Intervenor ‘STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF 8S Cray ATT, 1 , being duly sworn, upon oath, sate than on Tac afew sane are) » served thesttached documents, namely == Baas GiicoP Osea and Gc pon eheek on): © Phinitt/Peitioner (Name) Besceeeaeseeece 1 Defendant Respondent (Name, Ci Couny Agency ame) OF oer tame) by (check method of service used G Personally handing a true and correct copy ofthe document(s) to sboveat o'clock __an.at named ‘Citra we et ae) D1 Matting a rue and cortect copy ofthe document(s) to red sbove by placing the document(s) in an exvelope with sufficient postage inthe United States mail at the Post Office Jocated in the Cty of, person's last known adres of State of, at the Dated: Se eee eee eee Sige (Sen ba provence Poy o Cea Dopey Print Name: Beco ‘Sworn /aftimed before me ‘Address: day of, | CityhstatelZip “Telephones ( Notary Public! Deputy Court Adiinisiretor 8x12 Stele ENG Rev 8i05 werumagourte govtoms Pago of