Joseph D. Rued v. Catrina M. Rued

During a divorce proceeding in Minnesota, a young child disclosed numerous instances of sexual abuse at the hands of his siblings. A Minnesota State District Court concluded abuse did not occur, based in part on “inconclusive” investigations by a social welfare organization and county Child Protective Services, as well as evidence from child’s play therapist which the District Court admitted sua sponte, and without the therapist being called as a witness. The District Court used the affirmative conclusion that sexual abuse had not occurred as part of its justification for denying a father, Joseph Rued, custody of his child. This child was instead sent to live with Mother and siblings. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Without a full presentation of the facts, did the District Court’s affirmative conclusion that sexual abuse had not occurred deny due process to both Joseph Rued and his child.