Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Guardianship of D.M.S.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1985No. CX-85-994Published

1DissentForsberg, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The probate court had jurisdiction to hear the mother’s and aunt’s petitions for removal of the guardian, as the majority concludes. The record, however, fully supports the probate court’s order denying the petitions. Neither the allegations in the petition nor the testimony at the hearing indicate that it is in the best interests of the children to be removed from custody of the guardian. Moreover, they present no grounds to justify either a remand for a home study or a suggestion that jurisdiction be transferred to juvenile court. Accordingly, I would affirm the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of Welfare of SolomonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. State Ex Rel. Gravelle v. RenschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Schmidt v. HebeisenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. In Re the Guardianship of FingerholtzCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API