In Re the Matter of: Gabriel Appiah Tandoh, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0807

In Re the Matter of:
Gabriel Appiah Tandoh, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Angela Marie Nelson,
Appellant.

Filed February 4, 2019
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Big Stone County District Court
File Nos. 06-FA-08-315, 06-FA-17-51

Robert A. Manson, Robert A. Manson, P.A., White Bear Lake, Minnesota; and

Danielle L. Baumhofer Fremont, Fremont Law Office, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Ronald R. Frauenshuh, Jr., Ortonville, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Bratvold, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges an order granting respondent parenting time, arguing that the
district court erred in interpreting Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 2 (2018), and that the district
court considered impermissible evidence in making its determination. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Angela Marie Nelson and respondent Ga briel Appiah Tandoh are the
parents of I.T., born December 2005, and R.T., born March 2009. On March 22, 2017,
Nelson moved for an order for protection (OFP) against Tandoh. Following a hearing, the
district court ordered an OFP. The district court dete rmined that Tandoh had, at times,
“take[n] his strictness too far physically with [I.T.], and [R.T.] has witnessed this.” The
order limited Tandoh’s parenting time to telephone and video calls and stated that in-person
visits could resume when a mental -health counselor determined i t would be appropriate.
The district court indicated that it “in no way expects [Tandoh’s] contact with the children
to be restricted for a lengthy period.”
On November 27, 2017, the district court received a report from I.T.’s mental-health
counselor that recommended that the family begin reunification therapy. On December
22, Tandoh requested that the district court order that he resume parenting time with R.T.
and begin reunification therapy with I.T. The district court granted the motion but ordered
that Tandoh first complete four telephone calls with R.T. Tandoh completed the calls and
was scheduled to resume parenting time on the weekend of January 26-28, 2018. When he
arrived to pick up R.T. , she was not dressed appropriatel y for the winter weather, did not
have a bag packed, and ultimately refused to go with Tandoh. He arranged to take R.T.
out for breakfast the next day; but when he arrived the following morning, she again refused
to go with him. As a result, Tandoh was unable to exercise his parenting time.
Following the incident on January 26, the parties submitted various motions to the
district court. Tandoh requested that he be awarded compensatory parenting time, that the

3
district court hold Nelson in conte mpt because she failed to facilitate his parenting time
with R.T., and that the district court require Nelson to post a cost bond and pay his attorney
fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 6(d) (2018). Nelson moved the district court
to order Tandoh to reimburse her for various costs, hold Tandoh in contempt for failing to
pay child support, and order that Tandoh’s reunification therapy with I.T. be conducted by
a particular provider and that she be awarded attorney fees.
On February 12, the district court held a hearing on the motions. The district court
issued an interim order awarding Tandoh parenting time with R.T. for the weekend of
February 16. On May 14, the district court issued an order awarding Tandoh compensatory
parenting time based on its determination that R.T.’s refusal to participate in parenting time
with Tandoh was based on Nelson’s interference. The district court also ordered a civil
penalty, cost bond, and attorney fees based on this determination. Finally, the district court
denied Nelson ’s requests to hold Tandoh in contempt and award her attorney fees and
reimbursements, and ordered that reunification therapy be conducted by the provider
requested by Tandoh. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Minn. Stat. § 518.175 (2018) governs paren ting-time determinations. The statute
requires that “[t]he parent with whom the child resides shall present the child for parenting
time with the other parent, at such times as the court directs.” Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd.
2. If the noncustodial parent is denied court-ordered parenting time, the district court may
order remedies as established in Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 6. The statute provides:

4
(a) The court may provide compensatory parenting time
when a substantial amount of court-ordered parenting time has
been made unavailable to one parent unless providing the
compensatory parenting time is not consistent with the child’s
best interests.

(b) The court shall provide for one of the remedies as
provided under this subdivision for (1) a repeate d and
intentional denial of or interference with court -ordered
parenting time, or (2) a repeated and intentional failure to
comply with a binding agreement or decision under section
518.1751.

(c) If the court finds that a person has been deprived of
court-ordered parenting time under paragraph (b), the court
shall order the parent who has interfered to allow
compensatory parenting time to the other parent. . . .

Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 6(a) -(c). In addition, if the district court determines that a
party has “repeatedly and intentionally denied or interfered with court -ordered parenting
time” the district court may impose a civil penalty, require the party to post a bond to ensure
compliance, award attorney fees, and require the party who violated th e parenting-time
order to reimburse the other party for costs associated with the violation. Minn. Stat.
§ 518.175, subd. 6(d). We review parenting-time decisions for an abuse of discretion.
Gregory v. Gregory, 408 N.W.2d 695, 697 (Minn. App. 1987).
Nelson argues that the district court erred in interpreting Minn. Stat. § 518.175,
subd. 2. She argues that the district court erroneously determined that she had a duty to
“physically place the child in the car” when the statute requires only that she “shall present”
the child for parenting time. She asserts that , because she presented R.T. for parenting
time, the district court erred in awarding Tandoh compensatory parenting time and
requiring her to post a cost bond and pay a civil penalty and attorney fees. Nelson’s

5
argument misinterprets the district court’s order. The district court did not determine that
Nelson had a duty to physically place R.T. in Tandoh’s vehicle or that she failed to present
R.T. for parenting time. Rather, the district court ’s order was based on its determination
that Nelson “intentionally denied or interfered with court-ordered parenting time.”
The district court first addressed Nelson’s interference with Tandoh’s parenting
time on the weekend of January 26-28. The district court noted that when Tandoh arrived
to pick up R.T., Nelson “did not have [R.T.] ready to go, she did not have a bag packed
and in fact did not even have a coat on the child.” The district court also determined that
Nelson made no effort to encoura ge R.T. to go with Tandoh and that her hostile attitude
discouraged R.T. from going with him. The record supports these findings.
The parties submitted the transcript1 of the interaction between Tandoh, Nelson, and
R.T. on January 26. When Tandoh arrived to pick up R.T., Nelson informed him that she
had packed some toys but then stated, “I’m not packing clothes” because she did not “have
to.” The transcript indicates that R.T. was cold and was not initially wearing a co at, but
was eventually brought one by Nelson’s significant other. Nelson did not encourage R.T.
to go with Tandoh and stated that she would not tell R.T. what to do. Moses submitted an
affidavit that similarly supports the district court’s findings. Moses’s affidavit indicates
that when she and Tandoh arrived , R.T. “was not dressed in proper winter attire.” She
observed that Nelson and her significant other kept bringing R.T. inside and that each time

1 Jessica Moses, a friend of Tandoh’s who was with him when he tried to pick up R.T. ,
recorded the interaction. Tandoh had a transcript of the recording prepared by a c ourt-
reporting service and filed it with the court.

6
R.T. returned to talk with Tandoh “her mood and body language changed and she was
resisting her dad again.” Moses described Nelson’s demeanor as “upset and agitated” and
indicated that she “raised her voice frequently.” Nelson asserts that the district court
erroneously considered this affidavit because it lacks foundation. But the affidavit clearly
states that Moses was present on January 26 and that the information is based on her
personal observation of the incident.
The district court also observed that Nelson had been uncooperative throughout the
entire proceeding. The district court determined that Nelson had interfered with Tandoh’s
ability to exercise his parenting time because she “ma[de] it nearly impossible for father to
follow the Court’s orders and be a parent to his children.” The court noted that Nelson’s
actions demonstrated “a hostility toward father’s rights” and that she had “said time and
time again [R.T.] should be afraid of father.” The district court concluded that “any fear
[R.T.] may have of her father likely stems from mother’s actions and attitudes rather than
anything father has done.” The district court also determined that Nelson had impeded
Tandoh’s attempts to begin reunification therapy. Ta ndoh identified a provider that
conformed with the district court’s order regarding reunification therapy, accepted
insurance, and was available to start seeing the family immediately. Tandoh paid the
retainer and asked Nelson to call and complete an inta ke questionnaire over the phone.
Nelson refused to do so and ultimately recommended two providers that do not offer
appropriate treatment. As a result , the family was unable to even start the court -ordered
reunification therapy, which in turn prevented Tandoh from resuming parenting time with
I.T.

7
On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
Nelson intentionally interfered with court -ordered parenting time. The record amply
supports the district court ’s determinat ion that Nelson’s hostile attitude and actions
interfered with Tandoh’s ability to exercise his parenting time. The district court therefore
did not abuse its discretion in awarding Tandoh compensatory parenting time and requiring
Nelson to post a cost b ond and pay a civil fine and penalty. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175,
subd. 6 (stating such remedies are appropriate when a parent intentionally interferes with
court-ordered parenting time).
Affirmed.