If anyone with negative reviews on Family Court in Minnesota would like to talk to a Star Tribune reporter on this topic I will provide your name to the reporter.
Minnesota Family Court: When a Parent Cannot Afford the Process Required to See Her Child
To: Investigative Reporter / Minnesota Star Tribune
Subject: Investigative Story Proposal -- Minnesota Mother Unable to See Son After Job Loss and Suspension of Court-Established Reunification Process
Dear Investigative Reporter:
I am contacting the Minnesota Star Tribune because I believe my experience in Hennepin County Family Court raises serious questions about access to justice, financial barriers to parenting time, and what happens when the court-established process for restoring a parent-child relationship becomes impossible to complete.
I am a 66-year-old Minnesota mother who has not seen or spoken with my 12-year-old son, Austen, since June 15, 2025.
My son has now been diagnosed with cancer, and I remain unable to see him.
I am not asking your newspaper to decide the merits of my custody dispute. I am asking whether Minnesota's family court system has adequate safeguards for situations in which a parent's ability to maintain or restore contact with a child depends upon privately paid professionals whose services become financially inaccessible.
How the Situation Developed
My former spouse and I originally shared joint legal and physical custody of our son under our 2021 divorce decree.
Over time, my parenting time became restricted. In June 2024, the court established supervised parenting time and telephone contact.
In April 2025, our Parenting Consultant, Diane Reller, issued a decision suspending those contacts and requiring additional steps, including family therapy and a parenting-capacity assessment, before parenting time could be reevaluated.
I recognize that the court and Parenting Consultant cited concerns they believed warranted restrictions. I dispute aspects of the underlying allegations and conclusions, but I understand that those orders remain legally significant.
I complied with the family-therapy requirement and participated in sessions with Glorina Fruetel.
My final family-therapy session, and the last time I saw or spoke with my son, occurred on June 15, 2025.
I Lost My Job in a Reduction in Workforce
On May 16, 2025, I lost my employment with Medtronic as part of a reduction in workforce.
At age 65, I suddenly faced the challenge of finding new employment while attempting to comply with increasingly expensive family-court requirements.
The Parenting Consultant charged $275 per hour, and the parenting-capacity assessment was estimated to cost approximately $2,000.
After losing my job, I could no longer afford the ongoing Parenting Consultant expenses.
The Parenting Consultant suspended her services because of nonpayment.
The family-therapy process subsequently ended.
I did not stop participating in family therapy because I no longer wanted a relationship with my son. The process ended after the Parenting Consultant suspended services, and I could no longer afford the private professional services necessary to move forward.
I have continued seeking employment and attempting to find financially accessible alternatives.
The Court-Established Process Is No Longer Operational
This is the central issue I hope your newspaper will investigate.
The April 2025 Parenting Consultant decision established a process under which I would complete certain requirements, participate in family therapy, and eventually have my parenting time reevaluated.
That process depended upon the involvement of the appointed Parenting Consultant and family therapist.
However:
The Parenting Consultant suspended services because I could not pay her fees.
The family-therapy process ended.
The Parenting Consultant's appointment expired on September 26, 2026.
No replacement Parenting Consultant has been appointed.
The original family therapist is no longer providing the services contemplated by the decision.
The parenting-capacity assessment remains financially beyond my means.
The restrictions preventing contact with my son remain in effect.
The process established for reviewing compliance and determining when contact with my son may resume is no longer operational, yet the restrictions remain.
The court has previously declined to modify the requirements, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed an adverse ruling concerning the parenting-capacity assessment.
I recognize that those decisions must be considered when evaluating my case.
If you would like more information then please contact Michelle_mckenna2002@yahoo.com read more