may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
Rosemary Kuth, f/k/a Rosemary Simonson, petitioner,
Matthew C. Simonson,
Filed May 25, 1999
Dodge County District Court
File No. F59288
Mark G. Stephenson, Stephenson & Sutcliffe, P.A., 1635 Greenview Drive Southwest, Rochester, MN 55902 (for respondent)
Matthew C. Simonson, 607 Seventh Avenue Southeast, Austin, MN 55912 (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
This dissolution case involves the issue of visitation. On appeal from a dismissal of his motion to establish visitation rights, Matthew C. Simonson argues the trial court erred in finding he failed to present proof of compliance with conditions previously imposed as a prerequisite to visitation. We affirm.
Simonson argues the trial court erred in denying him time with his child. But a trial court is given broad discretion in visitation matters. See Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547, 550 (Minn. 1995) (noting trial court will not be overturned absent abuse of discretion). We will not set aside a trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
On April 15, 1997, the trial court suspended Simonson's visitation rights until Simonson submitted to an evaluation by a psychologist or psychiatrist approved by the court, entered and completed the Men Who Batter program, and followed the court-appointed therapist's recommendations. That decision was supported by the record, including facts that: (1) Simonson physically and verbally abused his former wife during their marriage and violated restraining orders after their separation; (2) during visits with his daughter, Simonson made derogatory comments and asked inappropriate questions about his former wife; (3) visitation supervisors reported Simonson engaged in "rough play" and potentially dangerous activities with his daughter during their visits; and (4) Simonson's daughter had trouble sleeping and stated her dad told her "a bloody blind man" is keeping them apart. See Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5 (1998) (permitting restriction of visitation where trial court determines visitation is likely to endanger child's physical or emotional health). We affirmed the trial court's decision, and the supreme court denied further review.
Since the trial court's April 1997 order, Simonson has looked into different domestic violence groups and attended an evaluation session for a Domestic Abuse and Intervention Treatment Program in 1994, but has not attended or completed the Men Who Batter program. Moreover, although Simonson submitted to psychological testing in 1992 and 1996, he has not received an updated evaluation. The trial court properly concluded Simonson has not met the conditions required to modify visitation. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Simonson's motion for visitation.