Mother alleges that the district court abused its discretion by admitting documents into evidence for which the proper foundation had not been laid to establish that the documents were business records, and which contained multiple-level hearsay. Appellants concede that, since father's motion for a new trial was not timely filed, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal. See In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1994) (stating that evidentiary rulings are subject to review in juvenile cases only if they were assigned as erroneous in a motion for a new trial), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994).
Further, because it is undisputed that the child is in therapy and because the parties admit their inability to cooperate is harmful to the child, the findings supporting the CHIPS adjudication are not clearly erroneous. See In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1994) (findings in CHIPS proceedings not set aside unless clearly erroneous), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994).
Father could have appealed that decision. See, e.g., In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 12 (Minn.App. 1994) (appeal from default CHIPS adjudication), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994). But-as conceded by father's appellate counsel at oral argument and as shown by the lack of any appellate proceeding challenging the CHIPS determination-father did not.
In juvenile cases, appellate courts may only review evidentiary rulings "if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error." In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1994) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994). Because mother made no motion for a new trial, this issue has been forfeited. Mother concedes that "[t]his issue was not properly preserved for the court of appeals," but states that "the interest[s] of justice require its review."
Because mother did not raise this issue in a motion for a new trial, the issue has been forfeited. In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994). We therefore decline to address this issue.
In juvenile cases, appellate courts may only review evidentiary rulings "if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error." In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1994) (quoting Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986)), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994).
Cont'l Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin, 801 N.W.2d 395, 399 (Minn. 2011); In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn. App. 1994) (applying this rule to juvenile cases), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994). The purpose for requiring such a question to be raised in a motion for a new trial or amended findings is that it "gives the [district] court time to consider the context of the objection and the effect the error may have had on the outcome of the case.
Even if mother had raised timely objections at trial, it is a well-established rule of law in Minnesota that objections to evidentiary rulings in juvenile protection proceedings, "are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error." In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn. App. 1994) (declining to review evidentiary issues in a juvenile protection proceeding where appellant failed to bring a motion for a new trial) (quoting Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 1996)), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994); see also Minn. R. Evid. 611 (stating that the district court shall control the mode and order of interrogation and presentation of evidence); Minn. R. Juv.
Because he made no objection before the juvenile court and failed to preserve the evidentiary issue in a motion for a new trial, we deem the argument forfeited and decline to address it further. See In re Welfare of T.D., 731 N.W.2d 548, 553 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007); In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994). --------
It is a well-established rule of law in Minnesota that objections to evidentiary rulings, both in adult and juvenile proceedings, "are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error." In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn. App. 1994) (declining to review evidentiary issues in a juvenile protection proceeding where appellant failed to bring a motion for new trial) (quoting Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986)), review denied (Minn. Nov. 29, 1994).