may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Lana Susan Higgins, petitioner,
Warren Nau Higgins,
File No. F39314712
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, James M. Crow, Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560 West Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 (for respondent Dakota County)
Mark A. Carter, 33 South Tenth Avenue, Suite 110, Hopkins, MN 55343 (for respondent Lana Higgins)
Warren Nau Higgins, Jr., 3840 Ballantrae Road #10, Eagan, MN 55122 (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Short, Judge.
Appellant Warren Nau Higgins challenges the revocation of his driver's license by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for failure to pay child support arrearages. Appellant contends: (1) he was not provided sufficient due process when the revocation hearing continued after his removal from the hearing; and (2) motions he attached to his request for a hearing were not addressed. We affirm.
Appellant's argument that the loss of his driver's license and subsequent inability to visit his children is an impermissible and unconstitutional punishment for his failure to pay child support is not properly before us. Because the ALJ's decision is required by statute we cannot say the ALJ abused her discretion. In addition, this court has previously concluded that appellant's indigence is self-imposed and thus, will not excuse him from his child support obligations. Higgins v. Higgins, Nos. C1-95-786 and C8-95-1448 (Minn. App. Dec. 26, 1995), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1996).
Appellant also contends his rights were violated because the motions he attached to his request for a hearing were not considered, and therefore, the subsequent default hearing was illegal. We disagree. The ALJ presiding over the revocation of appellant's license was not authorized to hear those motions and arguments. The limited scope of the hearing was to determine whether appellant was more than three months in arrears on his child support and whether he had entered into a payment plan for those arrearages. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 13 (Supp. 1997). Further, appellant's attached motions had not been approved by the Dakota County District Court as required by district court order and affirmed by this court in Higgins v. Higgins, No. C6-96-616 (Minn. App. Sept. 3, 1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996).
Finally, appellant's claim of lack of jurisdiction, and demands for: (1) removal of the Dakota County Attorney's office; (2) appointment of a special prosecutor to determine legislative impeachments; (3) removal of certain judges from hearing his case and assignment of a judge from another district without ties to Dakota County judges; and (4) appointment of counsel knowledgeable in constitutional law are not appropriately before us in this appeal.