Opinion
A22-0528
10-20-2022
In re the Marriage of: Andi Patimasari, petitioner, Respondent, v. Sherif Fahmy Eldeeb, Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-20-5808
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
RANDALL J. SLIETER, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Father appeals the district court's judgment and decree (J&D), in which the district court granted mother sole physical and sole legal custody of the parties' child and granted father supervised parenting time. We affirm.
2. Appellant Sherif Fahmy Eldeeb (father) and respondent Andi Patimasari (mother) were married in August 2015, and their only child was born in July 2016. The parties separated in July 2020, and mother petitioned for an order for protection (OFP) for herself and on the child's behalf, against father. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and granted a two-year OFP for mother and the child, finding that father committed domestic abuse against mother and the child.
3. In October 2020, mother, represented by counsel, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and sought sole legal and sole physical custody of the child. Father filed an answer and counterpetition requesting joint legal and joint physical custody. The parties stipulated to the division of assets and liabilities. Following trial, the district court issued its J&D and granted mother sole physical and sole legal custody of the child and granted father supervised parenting time.
4. In this pro se appeal, father raises many concerns about the underlying trial. After review of father's brief, we conclude that father assigns error to the custody decision in the J&D, but he included neither argument nor legal authority to support his assertions.
5. "An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Minn. 1946); see also Surf & Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring, 457 N.W.2d 782, 788 (Minn.App. 1990) (affirming when a claim of error was not supported by argument or authority and "inspection" showed no "obvious prejudice"), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1990). Therefore, any such claim of error is forfeited, and we must determine whether inspection of the record reveals the presence of obvious prejudicial error such that we should consider father's otherwise forfeited claims. Louden, 22 N.W.2d at 166.
"While an appellant acting pro se is usually accorded some leeway in attempting to comply with court rules, he is still not relieved of the burden of, at least, adequately communicating to the court what it is he wants accomplished and by whom." Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc., 400 N.W.2d 727, 729 (Minn. 1987); see also Gruenhagen v. Larson, 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 1976) (stating that, generally, a court will not modify ordinary rules and procedures because a pro se party lacks the skills and knowledge of an attorney); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.App. 2001) (stating that "some accommodations" can be made for pro se litigants, but emphasizing that pro se litigants are "generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules").
6. Our inspection of the record shows that the district court made detailed findings on each of the best-interests factors required by Minnesota law in custody and parenting-time determinations. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(1) (2020). Additionally, the district court made its findings "based on the evidence presented and explain[ed] how each factor led to its conclusions and to the determination of custody and parenting time." Id. In sum, the district court evaluated "all relevant factors," as required by Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a) (2020).
7. Father appears to assign error to the district court's finding that he committed domestic abuse. As part of its analysis of the fourth best-interests factor, whether domestic abuse has occurred, Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4), the district court found that father committed domestic abuse. In so finding, the district court received the OFP as an exhibit and relied on the factual findings described in the OFP. And in the OFP, the district court found that father pulled mother's hair, dumped out and smashed the contents of her purse, grabbed the child, took the keys to mother's car, and grabbed the phone away from mother when police attempted to call back in response to her earlier 911 call.
8. Because the record supports this finding, there is no obvious prejudicial error. Louden, 22 N.W.2d at 166; see also Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 521 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that factual findings underlying a custody decision were not clearly erroneous where "adequately support[ed]" by the record); In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that findings "are clearly erroneous when they are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole" (quotation omitted)).
Father also appears to assign error to the district court's reliance on purported inadmissible hearsay by considering the OFP. However, the district court was statutorily required to determine whether domestic abuse occurred. See Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(4). Moreover, the record shows that father did not object to the district court's acceptance of the OFP exhibit, as hearsay. We generally do not decide issues that were not raised before the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
9. Father also appears to assign error to the district court's finding regarding the parties' mental health. When considering the fifth best-interests factor, whether either parent has any mental-health issues that affect the child's safety or developmental needs, Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(a)(5), the district court found that mother had no identified psychiatric diagnoses or clinical conditions, but father suffered from delusional disorder. The district court found that father's condition carried "a risk [that] he will continue to engage in behaviors causing emotional harm to his [child], by sharing with his [child] the belief that [mother] wishes to harm [father]," and "[f]ather's delusions might inspire violent or abusive actions [by father] toward others, which would be distressing or traumatic for the child to witness."
10. These findings are amply supported by the record. Both parents were referred for psychological evaluations and the psychologist concluded that mother had no identified conditions while the "[a]vailable information suggests that [father] suffers from Delusional Disorder, a mental illness that is characterized by prominent delusions, in the absence of other symptoms of psychosis such as hallucinations or disorganized thinking." Thus, there is no obvious prejudicial error. Louden, 22 N.W.2d at 166; see also Ayers, 508 N.W.2d at 521.
11. We conclude that father assigns error to the J&D without legal argument or authority and, therefore, he has forfeited any such assignment of error. And our review of the record and the J&D reveals no obvious prejudicial error.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's J&D is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.