Family Courts Across America Are Ignoring the Laws Meant to Protect Parents and Children
- Ryan Alvar
- 4 hours ago
- 12 min read
📢 Share this post and sign the petition to demand nationwide family-court reform.
This case began in Minnesota’s Sixth Judicial District, but what’s happening here mirrors what’s happening in family courts across the country—judges and agencies ignoring clear laws, allowing parental alienation, and silencing parents who try to protect their kids.
Help me show lawmakers, journalists, and the federal government that this is not a local issue—it’s a national crisis that destroys families every day.
The State of Minnesota Just Proved Why Temporary Custody Laws Exist—and Then Ignored Them
On November 6, 2025, the St. Louis County Family Court denied every single motion I filed—temporary custody, contempt against Amy Schmidt, and a stay of an unlawful child-support order that the court itself admitted must be “revisited.”
What happened that day wasn’t just bad judging; it was the complete collapse of the rule of law.
1. Temporary Custody Is the Law—Not a Favor
Minnesota legislators foresaw exactly this kind of situation when they wrote Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subds. 1–2.
Those provisions give judges the power—and the duty—to issue temporary custody and parenting-time orders when delay would cause “immediate or irreparable harm.” They were enacted so children wouldn’t be left in limbo while their parents wait months or years for a final ruling.
My children and I have now been separated for more than sixteen months, and the trial date isn’t until January 2026.
By the time this case is completed there will be nearly two years of forced separation—precisely the harm the Legislature meant to prevent.
Yet the court refused to act, ignoring both § 518.131 and § 518.17, subd. 1(a), which require courts to consider a child’s emotional and psychological needs at every stage of a case—not just at trial.
If the statutes mean nothing when a parent hasn’t seen his children in a year, when do they ever apply?
Here are the original filings for this motion-all denied this week:
📄 Motion & Affidavit for Temporary Custody May 29, 2025
📄 Affidavit of Ryan William Alvar in Response to Guardian ad Litem Report June 27 2025
📄 Supplemental Affidavit of Petitioner in response to GAL Report and Affidavit OF Amy Schmidt July 3, 2025
2. A Guardian ad Litem Who Doesn’t Want the Job
Guardian ad Litem Jordan Mae Dokken has asked to withdraw multiple times, and the court still refused to remove her—even as she showed she was unwilling or unable to continue. Under Minn. Stat. § 518.165 and Rule 904 of the Minnesota Rules of Guardian ad Litem Procedure, a GAL must be removed for good cause, including failure to comply with court directives or to fulfill Rule 905 responsibilities; notice of professional sanction; or a formal request from the GAL Program.
The record shows Ms. Dokken has:
Violated Rule 905 by failing to conduct an independent investigation, advocate for the children’s best interests, monitor those interests, and present written reports with conclusions, recommendations, and the facts supporting them;
Breached neutrality by aligning with one parent instead of the children’s best interests;
Ignored mandatory reporting duties after learning that Respondent unlawfully accessed Petitioner’s confidential legal files;
Maintained undisclosed relationships creating an appearance of bias; and
Requested removal on multiple occasions, demonstrating unwillingness or inability to perform required duties.
Keeping a GAL who won’t (or can’t) perform Rule 905 obligations undermines the integrity of these proceedings and violates the statutory requirement that the children’s interests be represented by a neutral and competent advocate.
Here are the original filings for this motion-all denied this week:
📄 Motion, Memorandum of Law & Affidavit to Remove GAL June 5, 2025
3. Child-Support Enforcement on an Unlawful Order
The court has already admitted that the current child-support order “must be revisited.”
That acknowledgment means the order is defective and unenforceable.
Yet the State of Minnesota and St. Louis County continue to enforce it anyway, as if nothing is wrong—revoking my driver’s license, damaging my credit, and threatening my professional license under an order the court itself says is flawed.
The reason enforcement continues is simple: the child-support office cannot stop it without a new court order. Until the judge issues that order, the county is legally obligated to keep enforcing the old one. So when the same court drags its feet for months and refuses to reopen the case in a timely fashion, enforcement still applies—even against an order everyone agrees is unlawful. It’s a vicious circle that leaves parents like me punished for the court’s own delay.
Why the Order Is Unlawful
Fraud on the Court.
Amy and her attorney, Alexander Landreville, claimed I was earning far more than I actually make. Neither of them understands the difference between bookings, revenue, costs of goods sold, operating expenses, and actual net income. They argued that my company’s total revenue bookings equaled my personal income, even though much of that work hadn’t even started yet and disregarded costs of running a business. In other words, they treated the business’s gross receipts as if they were my paycheck. That’s not income—and the court accepted it without question even though I objected.
Use of Stolen Documents.
As I detailed in my April 23, 2025 motion to supplement the record, Amy admitted to accessing my private computer and Dropbox account 38 times without permission. She took confidential business and financial records and used them in court to argue I was hiding income as stated above. Her attorney then entered those stolen materials into evidence, despite knowing how she obtained them. That’s not evidence; that’s criminal misconduct.
Due-Process Violation.
Before the April 2025 order was issued, I filed a motion alerting the magistrate to these exact issues—Amy’s misrepresentation of her employment status, her illegal access to my files, and the discrepancies in her testimony. The court ignored my filing and issued the order anyway. A party cannot be bound by an order entered without the court addressing evidence of fraud or allowing a proper hearing for a filed motion. That is a textbook due-process violation.
What This Means
Because the court refused to act on its own findings and the county cannot stop enforcement without a new order, I am now being punished for an order that the court admits is wrong.
On November 7, my driver’s license was officially revoked for “arrears” under this same defective order. That’s in addition to passport revocation, negative credit reporting, and professional-license threats.
Why I Refuse to Pay
Let me be clear: I am not refusing to support my children.
I am refusing to pay an unlawful order that was obtained through fraud, enforced through procedural neglect, and weaponized by the very person who assaulted me and then perjured herself in court.
Paying under this order would mean funding my abuser’s litigation and validating a system that rewards criminal conduct and punishes honesty.
The Minnesota Legislature gave courts the tools to fix this. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(a), (c), and (f), a judge can set aside or correct any order obtained by mistake, fraud, or inequity. Yet the judge refuses to use those powers. Instead, she allows unlawful enforcement to continue while I lose my driver’s license, my credit, and my ability to earn a living.
That’s not justice. That’s systemic abuse disguised as procedure.
4. Evidence Tampering and Computer Crimes Ignored
During a recorded hearing, Amy’s own attorney, Alexander Landreville, asked her where she obtained my private business financials.
Her answer: “From his computer.” That’s not speculation—it’s on record.
I later obtained the Duluth Police Department report confirming that Amy admitted she “still had access” to my Dropbox and was reading all of my legal and business files—without my knowledge or consent. Investigator Jaclyn Groshens documented that Amy said I “did not know” she still had access. That is a written confession to unauthorized entry into a computer system.
Amy accessed my computer using my own username and password. Years ago, while we were still together, she had her own separate folder on the system with her own username and password—access limited to her files only. But when she later signed in under my credentials, she gained full access to everything: business ledgers, financials, and even privileged court documents. Because my system registered the log-ins as coming from me, it appeared that I was accessing the computer myself. I only discovered the truth after checking connected devices and taking screenshots showing repeated log-ins from “Amy’s iPhone.”
All of this occurred after multiple court cases were already pending between us and after Amy had obtained an Order for Protection against me. We had lived together for over eight years, and she likely knew or guessed my password from that time. But as the Minnesota courts have already ruled at the appellate level, any prior consent ends when the relationship ends. Former familiarity doesn’t grant lifetime access—just as an ex-partner can’t later take a car, enter a home, or withdraw funds from a past partners account and claim “I used to have permission.” That doctrine—revocation of consent—is a basic principle of criminal law.
The Laws She Broke
Under both Minnesota and federal law, Amy’s actions constitute felonies:
Minn. Stat. § 609.891, subds. 1 & 3 – Unauthorized Computer Access: Accessing a computer or data without authorization; a felony when done for advantage or to harm another.
Minn. Stat. § 609.89 – Computer Theft: Intentionally obtaining data or property from a computer without consent.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): Intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization to obtain information for personal gain or to further another crime is punishable by up to five years in federal prison—making it a felony offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a).
Minn. Stat. § 609.05 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 – Aiding and Abetting: Make accomplices—like Amy’s attorney who knowingly filed the stolen documents—equally liable.
Amy and her attorney used these stolen materials—my business and financial statements—to claim I was hiding income and to increase child-support obligations. They also accessed and reviewed my private litigation strategy: witness lists, cross-examination questions, statements, and legal research for the very cases in which we were opposing parties. In any other setting, that would be like one attorney hacking another attorney’s office or stealing files from opposing counsel—a direct violation of due process and of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
A Double Standard
Despite clear evidence of these crimes, the Court and the Duluth Police Department never warned me, never secured the devices, and never referred the case for prosecution. I discovered the report myself, six months later, buried in unrelated discovery.
Imagine if this happened in a criminal trial. If a prosecutor relied on stolen evidence from a defendant’s computer, the case would be dismissed immediately. The same Constitution, the same Fourth- and Fifth-Amendment protections apply here—but in family court, those rights vanish.
When a family court allows felonies to occur within its own process, admits the resulting evidence, and refuses to hold the responsible parties accountable, it places itself above the law. It demands obedience from citizens while excusing criminal conduct by those favored by the court.
Why National Family-Court Reform Is Urgently Needed
This isn’t just a Minnesota problem—it’s a national crisis. Family courts across the United States routinely ignore evidence, perjury, and privacy violations, claiming they are “civil matters.” No other courtroom in America operates with that kind of immunity. When the same acts would be felonies in criminal court but are tolerated in family court, the entire justice system loses credibility.
5. Denying Enforcement of Its Own Parenting-Time Order
On November 6, 2024, Amy and I reached a parenting-time agreement during mediation. That agreement was reduced to a court order by this very judge.
Amy hasn’t complied once since January 6, 2025.
Ten months. Zero visits.
To exemplify it, the same judge later signed another order this spring stating that my parenting time “shall immediately resume.”
Yet Amy still refuses—and the court still does nothing.
Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 6 isn’t optional. It says the court shall order compensatory parenting time and shall sanction a parent who intentionally denies visitation. The statute even references § 609.26, which makes intentional deprivation of parenting time a felony.
But a private citizen can’t initiate a criminal felony case. Only the courts and law enforcement—through the county attorney’s office—have that power. So when they refuse to act, what recourse does a parent have? Nothing.
Instead of enforcing the law—or even its own orders—the court chose silence. Think about that: a Minnesota judge has allowed a standing court order to be ignored for ten straight months without a single warning, sanction, or threat of contempt.
When I was accused of publishing the Guardian ad Litem report—one that exposed the trauma my children were suffering and the State’s inaction—this same court reacted immediately: contempt proceedings, fines, and two days in jail. I was even facing a 90-day sentence if I didn’t remove the report from my website.
Yet when Amy deliberately withholds two children for nearly a year—a felony act under Minnesota law—she faces nothing.
That should shock everyone. Especially every lawmaker in this state.
Why have three branches of government if the judicial branch can simply ignore the laws created by the other two?
Our elected representatives debated and enacted these protections for a reason. They were written to safeguard parents and children from exactly this type of abuse—and a court cannot just disregard them.
But they get away with it because too few people speak up.
That ends here. I’m speaking up, and if you’re reading this, I hope you will too.
Equal justice under the law?
Not in Minnesota’s Sixth Judicial District.
6. Emotional Harm and Pattern of Misconduct Ignored
The November 6 Order defers all findings about the children’s emotional harm and Respondent’s ongoing pattern of misconduct until trial—despite extensive documentary and audio evidence showing continued trauma and alienation. Minnesota law does not require a court to postpone protection of children until trial.
Under Minn. Stat. § 518.131, subds. 1 and 2(a), the court may issue temporary custody, parenting-time, or other protective orders at any stage of the proceedings when necessary to protect the welfare of the children or to prevent immediate harm. Likewise, § 518.17, subd. 1(a) obligates the court to consider the children’s physical and emotional needs in every decision concerning custody and parenting time—not only at the time of final adjudication.
The evidence already before the Court—including recordings, visitation-center reports, and prior GAL observations—shows clear and ongoing emotional distress in the children, consistent with recognized signs of parental alienation and psychological abuse. By refusing to act until trial, the Court has allowed that harm to continue unabated for more than sixteen months. Such delay contradicts the Legislature’s intent that family courts intervene promptly to protect children’s well-being and provide immediate remedies when credible evidence of harm is presented.
Deferring these issues violates the statutory mandates of § 518.131 and § 518.17, subd. 1(a) as well as the substantive due-process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. The law already grants the Court ample authority to act now; choosing not to exercise that authority effectively denies the children the protections those statutes were enacted to provide.
7. Discovery That Only Works One Way
The Court’s November 6 Order restricts my access to discovery while giving Respondent and her attorney full possession and use of both psychological evaluations. Respondent’s counsel can keep, study, and introduce both reports, including mine, yet I am allowed to see Respondent’s evaluation only at the courthouse, under supervision, with no ability to copy or take notes.
This unequal treatment prevents me from using the same evidence available to the other side and leaves me unable to prepare properly for trial. It also ensures that Respondent’s attorney can freely use my evaluation while I cannot use hers.
A self-represented parent cannot meet trial requirements under those conditions. The restriction is not neutral—it creates a one-sided process that denies me fair preparation and basic due-process protections guaranteed to every litigant.
8. Where the Case Stands
The court’s November 6 order has now been formally objected to in writing on every paragraph, with statutory citations to:
§ 518.131 – Temporary orders to prevent immediate harm
§ 518.17 subd. 1(a) – Consideration of emotional and physical needs
§ 518.175 subd. 6 & § 609.26 – Parenting-time enforcement and felony deprivation
Rule 60.02 – Relief from unlawful or inequitable orders
You can read the full objection and the court’s order below.
Together they show how Minnesota’s own judiciary is refusing to enforce the very protections the Legislature created.
Documents
📄 November 6, 2025 Order
📄 Petitioner’s Written Objection – Nov 7, 2025
📄 December 11, 2024 Duluth Police Department Report – Unauthorized Computer Access
📄 February 13, 2025 Child Support Hearing – Admitted Computer Access
Final Word: From One State to the Nation
What’s happening in Minnesota is just one chapter in a much larger story.
Every state has parents trapped in the same impossible position—begging courts to follow the very statutes written to protect them, only to be ignored while their children suffer.
Family courts were created to protect children, not to enable abuse, alienation, and injustice.
It’s time for national reform—for federal oversight, transparency, and accountability in every courtroom that touches a child’s life.
Share this post. Add your name to the petition and share it. Help make sure that what’s happening in Minnesota isn’t happening in your state too.
Together we can demand that the laws designed to protect families actually be enforced—in every state, for every parent, and for every child.
🔁 Join the Fight for Reform
I have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging systemic misconduct by judges, attorneys, and state agencies that has stripped parents of their rights and traumatized countless children.
With 27 defendants, including the State of Minnesota, this case seeks accountability — and reform.
Join me in taking this mission national.
How You Can Help:
✅ Subscribe: Stay updated — Contact
✅ Visit: www.ryanalvar.com
✅ Support the Fight: GoFundMe – Help Cover Legal Costs & Reform Efforts
✅ Follow & Share: Real Dad Initiative
✅ Contact Your Legislators: Demand oversight for Judges, GALs and transparency in family court.
Family-court reform won’t happen unless lawmakers hear directly from the people.
If what you’ve read here troubles you, don’t stop at signing the petition—call and email your state legislators. Tell them that what has happened in this case—and in so many others—proves we need oversight for judges and guardians ad litem, uniform due-process protections, and full transparency in family courts nationwide.
📬 Not sure who represents you? Find out here → 🔗 https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/iMaps/districts/
Across the country, I’ve heard from parents who’ve lost everything—some haven’t seen their children in years. When the system designed to protect families becomes the weapon that destroys them, it’s time for change. We must fix this broken family court system. Until that day, I’ll keep fighting—for our children, for truth, and for justice.
"494 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over."
Ryan William Alvar
Parent and Plaintiff
