Prompts winter weather advisories as cold air moves in Friday night

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

In upholding the constitutionality of Minnesota's law allowing a 50-year order for protection for victims of domestic abuse, the Minnesota Supreme Court was 

 on the question of whether abuse or stalking of a mother constitutes abuse of the children when it comes to deciding whether parenting time should be restricted.

The court has been considering the case of James Bergstrom and Vanessa Rew of Woodbury for more than a year and a half. They were married for 14 years, before they divorced.

Rew sought a series of one-year orders for protection that prohibited Bergstrom from contact with their two children, banned him from entering the home, and required him to stay away from the children's school.

Over the years, he was convicted of felony charges of violating the orders, and served eight months in prison. Among other infractions, he was arrested for stalking Rew in a car with a camera, tapping into her e-mail, and showing up at Rew's church retreat, refusing to leave.

In 2009, Rew sought a 50-year order for protection (OFP), which is 

 if someone violates an order for protection on two or more occasions, or if someone has has had two or more orders for protection in effect against the same person. A court granted the order even though there'd been no specific findings of domestic abuse.

In 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the 50-year statute, saying it doesn't violate Bergstrom's freedom of speech because "it burdens no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest."

, Justice David Stras noted that courts generally look unfavorably on restraining speech before it is made, but he cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision 

upholding protest-free zones around abortion clinics.

The court also turned aside Bergstrom's contention that a 50-year order for protection is unduly harsh. "Even if an OFP carries a timeframe of up to 50 years, as occurred here," Stras said, "nothing prevents a serial abuser from moving to modify or vacate the terms and conditions of the OFP after 5 years."

But Stras also ruled that the 50-year protection does not extend to the couple's children past the time at which they turn 18. They are now 16 and 14.

There was, however, no evidence that Bergstrom abused his children, Stras said, and the Court of Appeals was mistaken to deny him parenting time with them. He ordered the case back to the district court to reconsider the ban.

That part of today's decision drew a rebuke from Chief Justice Lori Gildea.

"The record shows that Rew alleged that Bergstrom has waged an extended campaign to terrorize his children along with his ex-wife, both by violating orders for protection in the children’s names and by threatening the children’s safety and emotional well-being," Gildea wrote in her dissent.

She also said a threat not to return the children after a visitation constitutes a kidnapping threat under Minnesota law.

Justice Christopher Dietzen said without the order for protection banning parenting time, Bergstrom could use his children to get to Rew. Bergstrom had hidden cellphones in various locations and pressured the child to use these phones to secretly call him, he noted.

But Dietzen said he agreed with the Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to the district court, if only to have it issue a definite finding that he had abused the children.

NewsCut

Crime, Law and Justice

Bob Collins

Author

In upholding the constitutionality of Minnesota's law allowing a 50-year order for protection for victims of domestic abuse, the Minnesota Supreme Court was sharply divided today on the question of whether abuse or stalking of a mother constitutes abuse of the children when it comes to deciding whether parenting time should be restricted.

MN Supreme Court divided on whether abuse of a mother is abuse of children

Go Deeper.

Like this?