Mayor Shawn Reinke On the Record: Federal Civil Rights Defendant, Child Abuse Allegations, and a Five-Month Family Court Delay — City of Paynesville, MN Put on Notice
- Ryan Alvar
- 20 hours ago
- 10 min read
On January 12, 2026, I appeared before the Paynesville City Council to place a limited matter on the public record.
I did not argue my custody case.
I did not ask the Council to intervene in judicial proceedings.
I did not accuse anyone beyond what is already documented in court records.
I provided notice—factually, calmly, and on the record.
This post explains what happened, why it matters, and how it directly connects to an 18-month delay in a custody case involving documented child abuse of two very young children—followed by a five-month continuance that extended that harm.
Important Context (Up Front)
Shawn Reinke is simultaneously:
The Mayor of Paynesville, Minnesota;
A licensed attorney representing a party in my custody case; and
A named defendant in my federal civil-rights lawsuit and pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Those federal proceedings arise from:
the suppression of government-produced evidence documenting child trauma,
retaliation for protected speech advocating for child safety,
the enforcement of an unconstitutional confidentiality framework,
and the refusal of state courts to provide real-time protection while harm continued.
That dual role is why City Hall matters here.
Eighteen Months. Then the Trial Was Finally Set.
My custody case has been pending since July 2, 2024.
For 18 months, there have been:
No custody determinations (temporary or final);
No enforcement of parenting-time statutes;
No enforcement of court orders;
No meaningful judicial intervention despite documented emotional and psychological harm to my children.
After 18 months, the court finally scheduled trial for January 7–8, 2026.
Those trial dates represented the first concrete opportunity for judicial intervention after prolonged delay in a case involving very young children.
The trial did not happen.
The 30-Day Request That Became a Five-Month Delay
Weeks before trial, Shawn Reinke, counsel for the opposing party, requested a 30-day personal leave continuance citing health reasons, while reserving the right to seek additional time.
I objected—formally and on the record—because time itself is the harm in a child-custody case, particularly when documented child abuse is ongoing.
The court did not rule on my objection before trial.
Instead, the court expanded the request into a five-month continuance, moving trial to June 8–10, 2026, without findings addressing proportionality or harm to the children.
After an already 18-month delay, the case was pushed out another five months.
When this is finally resolved, it will have been more than two years since my children were taken.
This five-month delay did not occur in isolation. It is part of a documented pattern that I lay out step-by-step in this post:
Why the City Council Meeting Matters
Within days of the original January 7–8, 2026 trial dates, I attended the January 12, 2026 Paynesville City Council meeting, where opposing counsel serves as Mayor.
When I indicated I had public comment:
Mayor Shawn Reinke recused himself, stating this was a private matter;
He handed the gavel to another councilmember;
He left the dais and sat in the audience;
I delivered my statement to the City Council and the City;
He then returned to his seat.
For the public record, the Mayor was present and performing his duties that evening.
I did not speculate about health.
I did not accuse anyone of lying.
I placed facts on the record.
Even if the City were to later state that such notice had been provided, the observable facts remain unchanged. The Mayor’s public presence and performance of his duties at the January 12, 2026 meeting demonstrate that any claimed inability to perform his duties did not prevent him from carrying out official responsibilities during the same period the custody trial was delayed.
My Statement to the Paynesville City Council (Verbatim)
To prevent reframing, this is exactly what I said:
“Good evening. My name is Ryan Alvar. I’m here tonight to place a limited matter on the public record. I want to inform the City Council that Mayor Shawn Reinke is a named defendant in an active federal civil-rights lawsuit and a related appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving alleged child abuse of two very young children in a family court matter. For the public record, I understand the Mayor is present and performing his duties at tonight’s meeting. My inquiry is limited to whether the City has received any formal notice that the Mayor is unable to perform his duties due to health reasons. I am not requesting medical details—only whether such notice has been provided to the City. I respectfully request that this statement and inquiry be reflected in the meeting minutes. Thank you.”
There was no response to the inquiry.
When I concluded my statement and thanked the Council, multiple councilmembers responded with brief verbal acknowledgements, including “thank you,” before the meeting moved on.
The absence of any substantive response after notice is still part of the record.
This Was Not About Health. It Was About Control—and It Worked.
This was never about health in the abstract. It was about who controls the timeline in a case where time determines outcomes.
At the moment when judicial intervention could no longer be deferred, Respondent’s counsel initiated a personal-leave request. That request did not ask the court to protect children or enforce existing orders. It asked for time.
The court expanded that request into a five-month delay. The result was predictable and immediate: the continuation of conditions under which documented child abuse was occurring.
This did not happen by accident. It fit a pattern already established in this case—one in which statutory mandates and court orders were acknowledged, then ignored; deadlines were set, then missed; and delay was repeatedly rewarded while harm continued.
This is how child-protection laws are defeated in practice: not by overturning them, but by running out the clock.
What Shawn Reinke Did — Beyond Lawful Advocacy (Documented)
This is not speculation. These are documented facts, drawn from court orders and filings:
Advised his client to ignore court-ordered parenting time, memorialized in multiple court orders over more than a year, in violation of both court orders and Minnesota statutory law requiring parenting time absent findings of danger.
Initiated a health-based delay that triggered a five-month continuance after an 18-month wait, extending documented child abuse after a court found me to be a fit parent on October 23, 2024.
Allowed discovery deadlines to pass while no continuance had been granted and before any court order excusing compliance was entered, then benefited from the continuance that retroactively excused that noncompliance.
Pursued contempt proceedings seeking incarceration and fines payable directly to his firm, stating on the record that his client was not paying him—effectively attempting to obtain payment for his services through sanctions imposed against me.
Attempted to enforce a non-statutory confidentiality designation—originating from the court and the Guardian ad Litem, not from him—to suppress a government-created report documenting child abuse.
Latched onto that designation to silence publication of the same report he had publicly filed himself months earlier in court submissions.
Used retaliatory litigation to chill protected speech about child safety.
Persisted in advancing accusations of abuse after allegations were adjudicated and found false, while delay ensured no timely correction.
This is not zealous advocacy.
It is weaponized delay and abuse of process, with foreseeable harm to children.
What happened here exposes not just individual misconduct, but a structural failure that places every family at risk.
Why This Matters to Every Parent in Minnesota
What happened in my case is not unique. The same structural features—unchecked delay, non-enforcement of parenting-time statutes, suppression of evidence documenting harm, and the absence of real-time oversight—exist in every Minnesota family court. Any parent can find themselves trapped in a system where the law says one thing, the court acknowledges it, and then nothing happens while time passes and harm continues.
In cases involving children, delay is not neutral. Delay replaces enforcement. Delay defeats statutory protections. Delay allows harm to become normalized. When courts permit attorneys to initiate delay, excuse missed deadlines, suppress evidence, and postpone adjudication without findings addressing child safety, the system effectively teaches parents that compliance with the law is optional—and that children will bear the cost.
This is why my case matters beyond my family. If a fit parent with extensive documentation, court findings, and public advocacy can be stalled for years while harm continues, then no parent is protected by statute alone. Without mechanisms that force enforcement as cases unfold, every family is vulnerable to the same outcome.
Why the Mayor’s Role Matters
A mayor holds public trust.
That trust includes:
Ethical conduct,
Transparency,
Accountability,
Responsibility to children and families in the community.
When the same individual:
Is a public official,
A licensed attorney,
A defendant in a federal civil-rights case, and
The initiating cause of delay that prolongs child abuse,
the public has a right to know.
This is not politics.
It is ethics and institutional integrity.
Why Civil Conspiracy Is Central to My Federal Case
Judges enjoy extremely broad immunity for actions taken in their official capacity—even when those actions are unlawful.
That immunity collapses only when judicial actors act in concert with others to produce an unlawful result.
Civil conspiracy exists for this reason.
In plain terms:
A judge acting alone is almost always immune.
A judge acting as part of a coordinated pattern with attorneys and other actors is not.
Here, the pattern is documented:
Delay initiated by counsel;
Expanded and accommodated by the court;
Discovery noncompliance excused;
Evidence of child abuse suppressed;
Enforcement suspended;
Harm prolonged.
No single act explains the outcome.
The pattern does.
Transparency, Documentation, and One Sealed Report
Every statement in this post is supported by court orders and filings. Those records are publicly accessible:
online through Minnesota’s public court records, and/or
at any State of Minnesota courthouse case-record kiosk, where members of the public may view or print them.
I am publishing documentation for one reason only: accountability and reform.
There is one exception.
The January 2, 2025 Guardian ad Litem report—the report documenting my children’s trauma and the State’s inaction—has been sealed in both state and federal court, despite the absence of statutory authority for such sealing.
That is the only document not currently accessible.
I published that report because it documented ongoing child abuse and government inaction, and because no protective intervention followed its issuance. That publication led to my incarceration and sanctions—but it also framed the central constitutional question now before the federal courts.
The Central Question on Federal Appeal (Condensed)
At the heart of my federal appeal is this question:
May federal courts decline to provide temporary or emergency protection when state actors are actively violating constitutional rights, suppressing government-produced evidence of child trauma, retaliating against protected speech, and allowing delay to substitute for enforcement—while children remain harmed?
The district court’s rulings effectively assert that federal courts are powerless to act under these circumstances.
I am asking the Eighth Circuit to review that conclusion.
Why This Demands Reform—Now
Minnesota’s Legislature has done the work.
The laws exist.
Those laws were written with a foundational assumption: that courts would follow them. Parenting-time statutes, child-protection mandates, and due-process safeguards all presume good-faith enforcement by the judiciary in real time.
What the Legislature did not build is a mechanism to address what happens when that assumption fails.
There is no statutory requirement compelling courts to enforce the law as cases unfold. There is no real-time correction when enforcement is delayed, denied, or ignored. There is no consequence when statutory mandates are acknowledged on paper and then set aside in practice.
When delay replaces enforcement, separation of powers begins to collapse.
The law remains on the books, but its effect is suspended.
Rights exist in theory, but not in reality.
At that point, the judiciary is no longer interpreting the law—it is effectively deciding whether the law applies at all.
We no longer have three functioning branches of government.
We have unchecked judicial discretion.
That is not democracy.
That is not justice.
That is unconstitutional.
And it is not acceptable—especially when children are being harmed.
Why These Ongoing Violations Matter in Federal Court
I did not file my federal civil-rights case lightly or prematurely.
I initiated my federal action in July 2025, after months of documented violations had already occurred and after it became clear that state courts were unwilling or unable to stop the harm to my children in real time. At that point, multiple actors—including judges, attorneys, and government-funded entities—had already participated in conduct that violated both state law and constitutional protections.
Since then, the number of defendants has grown to 27, including Shawn Reinke and multiple judicial actors.
What has happened after the federal case was filed matters just as much as what happened before it.
Each new act of delay, retaliation, suppression of evidence, or non-enforcement is not an isolated event—it is additional proof of an ongoing pattern. These actions continue to violate my constitutional rights and my children’s rights, and they further demonstrate why federal intervention is necessary.
I have demanded a trial by jury, and the case has been approved for a jury trial.
That means these issues will not be decided behind closed doors or reduced to abstract legal theory. They will be evaluated by a jury of my peers, based on documented facts, timelines, court orders, and conduct.
Every continuation of this behavior—every unjustified delay, every ignored statute, every act that prolongs harm—becomes additional evidence. Not rhetoric. Not opinion. Evidence.
That is why transparency matters.
That is why documentation matters.
And that is why these events are being placed on the public record as they occur.
The actions that followed the continuance—including what occurred at City Hall—are not afterthoughts; they are new evidence in an already-filed federal civil-rights case approved for a jury trial.
Closing
I put this on the record because silence is what allows this to continue.
If this system can do this in a case with:
Extensive documentation,
Court findings of parental fitness,
Statutory mandates,
Federal oversight already invoked,
it can do it to anyone.
And it does.
Reform is the answer.
🔁 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:
✅ Sign the Petition: Urge DOJ to investigate family-court violations
✅ 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.
📬 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—many 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.
"560 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over."
Ryan William Alvar
Parent and Plaintiff
