Banken vs. Banken / Carver County, MN / Judge Richard Perkins / Banken children ages 1, 5 and 7
Minnesota Statutes § 518.17 was enacted into law by the Minnesota legislature and approved by the governor. It requires the judicial branch of Minnesota to apply the criteria set forth in the statute in determining who gets custody of children in family litigation. But Judge Richard Perkins has ignored this statute and refuses to apply it. His August 5, 2011 judgment makes no determination on custody. In a separate August 5, 2011 “order on Motions” Judge Perkins gave father “temporary” sole custody of the children and gave mother only “supervised” visitation with the children. The restrictions on mother have deprived her of any visitation with her children. In over seven months, she has had no visitation with her children. There have been no hearings. No findings of fact. No basis at all for depriving mother of all contact with her children except for the publication of her blog on the internet which Judge Perkins demands that mother take down and end all posts to that blog – a blatant violation of mother’s right of free speech under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. Judge Perkins has completely ignored and refused to apply any of the criteria specified in Minn. Stat. § 518.17. He is thumbing his nose at the legislative and executive branches of Minnesota’s government. He is acting like a dictator in disregarding the law and doing whatever he wants in court. In so doing his behavior is uncivilized, insensitive, savage and barbaric. He has and is seriously damaging three children in allowing them to be molested and depriving them of contact with their mother. He has destroyed the formation of a bond between the infant daughter of the parties and her mother – a permanent injury. Judge Perkins has no conscience. He is drunk with power.
In his August 5, 2011 judgment, Judge Perkins ignored and refused to apply Minnesota Statutes § 518.58, which governs property distribution in family litigation. Judge Perkins awarded mother nothing. None of the parties money, assets, property, and no part of the equity in the marital homestead. He ordered mother to move out of the marital home on two week’s notice even though she had no place to go. He further ordered that mother was indebted to father in an amount over $40,000.00 and assessed mother sanctions amounting to thousands of dollars for contempt of his orders and for attorney’s fees for father, a wealthy business owner. He totally disregarded Minn. Stat. § 518.58, which states in part:
[T]he court shall make a just and equitable division of the marital property of the parties without regard to marital misconduct, after making findings regarding the division of the property. The court shall base its findings on all relevant factors including the length of the marriage, any prior marriage of a party, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, needs, opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets, and income of each party. The court shall also consider the contribution of each in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker. It shall be conclusively presumed that each spouse made a substantial contribution to the acquisition of income and property while they were living together as husband and wife. The court may also award to either spouse the household goods and furniture of the parties, whether or not acquired during the marriage. The court shall value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable. If there is a substantial change in value of an asset between the date of valuation and the final distribution, the court may adjust the valuation of that asset as necessary to effect an equitable distribution. (Emphasis added)
Judge Perkins violated the statute in several particulars including giving mother nothing for her contribution as a homemaker and disregarding the conclusive presumption that mother made a “substantial contribution” to the acquisition of income and property. Judge Perkins again thumbed his nose at the legislature and an enacted statute approved by the governor.
Mother is engaged in an appeal of the outrageous judgment of Judge Perkins. She has no money. Absolutely nothing. Literally, she cannot afford the assistance of counsel in her appeal. Father, a wealthy business owner, who has paid and is paying substantial amounts to his attorney, easily can provide funds for mother to use in obtaining counsel and helping to level the playing field. Basic fairness demands that she get this assistance.
Mother has been evaluated more than once by licensed professionals and found to be normal and well qualified to parent her children. A fair and proper finding on permanent custody requires that father also be evaluated by an independent, responsible evaluator selected or approved by mother. This is for the children’s protection.
This is a small part of the letter being composed to explain the horrid way in which these children and mother have been treated by Judge Perkins of Carver County, MN…