We Only Care About Fraud When It Involves Money — Not When It Involves Children
- Ryan Alvar
- Jan 3
- 10 min read
Right now in Minnesota, the public and our legislators are rightly outraged about fraud.
They’re demanding audits.
They’re calling for investigations.
They’re asking where the money went and who allowed it to happen.
But there is another kind of fraud happening in this state — one that does not involve money, but involves children — and almost no one wants to talk about it.
That fraud is happening every day inside Minnesota’s family court system.
And I know, because I am living it.
Eighteen Months With No Resolution
Yesterday marked eighteen months since my children were taken from me — July 2, 2024.
Today marks one full year since I last saw them, on January 3, 2025, in a supervised visitation center setting.
Since that day:
There has been no parenting time
No enforcement of parenting-time statutes
No enforcement of court orders
No meaningful judicial intervention
This is not because the law is unclear.
Minnesota statutes make parenting time mandatory, absent findings of danger.
Minnesota law recognizes emotional and psychological harm to children as child abuse.
Minnesota courts have issued multiple orders requiring parenting time to occur.
And yet — nothing happens.
Fraud Isn’t Just About Money
We call it fraud when:
funds are misused,
grants are misapplied,
or financial safeguards are ignored.
But what do we call it when a system:
claims to protect children,
claims to follow the law,
claims to enforce court orders,
…and then does none of those things?
When courts issue orders they refuse to enforce, that is fraud.
When statutes are treated as optional, that is fraud.
When children are harmed and the system looks away, that is institutional fraud.
The only difference is that no one is stealing money — they’re stealing time, safety, childhood, and parental relationships.
The Appellate System Offered No Path Forward
Last week, my petition to the Minnesota appellate court was denied.
It is important to be clear about what I asked for — and why.
Minnesota family court provides no mechanism to appeal or enforce unlawful orders while a custody case is ongoing. There is no interlocutory appeal. There is no real-time enforcement remedy. By design, parents are told to wait until after final custody orders are entered and then appeal.
I understood that reality when I filed my writ.
That is precisely why I was not asking the appellate court to:
enforce parenting-time statutes,
overturn custody rulings, or
intervene in the merits of the case.
I asked for the only protection still available before final judgment:
that my case be moved out of the 6th Judicial District, and
that it be assigned to a different judicial officer,
so that the final custody trial could proceed in a forum where neutrality was at least possible.
That was the one and only opportunity to safeguard the integrity of the trial process before irreparable decisions were made.
Once that request was denied, there was no remaining procedural safeguard capable of ensuring a fair trial before final judgment.
The appellate court declined.
Not because the underlying issues were resolved.
Not because court orders were being enforced.
Not because the documented harm to my children had stopped.
But because, according to the appellate court, I must wait until after everything is over and then appeal.
What That Denial Actually Means
The denial of my writ did not merely reject a procedural request — it eliminated the only remaining pretrial safeguard available under Minnesota law.
With no ability to appeal interim rulings, no mechanism to compel enforcement during litigation, and no avenue for real-time correction, the refusal to change venue or assign a different judge leaves parents and children completely unprotected until final judgment.
All review is deferred.
All accountability is postponed.
All harm is allowed to continue.
The Position This Leaves Parents In
As a result, I am now required to proceed to a final custody trial in the same courtroom, before the same judge, within the same judicial district, while simultaneously litigating federal civil-rights claims against:
the presiding judge,
the judge’s supervising authority,
opposing counsel,
the Guardian ad Litem, and
advocacy organizations that routinely appear in court aligned with the opposing party.
This is not a hypothetical conflict.
This is the forum in which the final custody determination will be made.
When the only available pretrial safeguard — reassignment to a neutral venue — is denied, and all other forms of real-time review are unavailable by law, the system offers parents no meaningful protection until after the damage is done.
Why This Is a Systemic Failure
A justice system that provides review only after final judgment, in cases where childhood is the irreparable interest at stake, does not provide justice.
It provides hindsight.
By the time an appeal is allowed, the trial has already occurred, the orders have already been entered, and the harm the system failed to prevent has already taken its toll.
Years will have gone by.
That is not a flaw in strategy.
That is a structural failure of the system.
And it is why reform is the answer.
The Continuance That Exposes the System
The custody trial in my case was finally set to take place on January 7 and 8, 2026.
Those dates mattered.
It was the first time—after more than a year and a half—that the court had finally scheduled a trial to resolve custody, parenting time, and the ongoing harm to my children.
Yesterday, January 2, 2026, the court continued that trial.
Not by order addressing the law.
Not by findings addressing harm to the children.
Not by ruling on my motion opposing delay.
Instead, it was done administratively.
The trial is now scheduled for:
June 8, 2026
June 9, 2026
June 10, 2026
That is a five-month delay, not the 30-day accommodation that was requested.
And when this is finally over, it will have been more than two years since my children were taken from me.
How This Happened — Step by Step
This is not speculation. This is what the filings show, in order:
December 23, 2025
Respondent’s attorney, Shawn Reinke, submitted a Rule 18 personal leave request stating he was “actively scheduling an appointment” related to a health issue.
He requested “at least 30 days”, while explicitly reserving the right to ask for more time later.
December 23, 2025 (same filing)
The request made no reference to the January 7–8 trial dates, no scheduled appointment, no medical restriction preventing trial, and no explanation why co-counsel of record could not proceed.
December 28, 2025
I filed a formal objection, laying out substantial prejudice:
parenting time had been unlawfully denied for a year,
court orders had not been enforced,
Minnesota statutes mandate parenting time and child protection,
delay itself was prolonging documented harm to my children.
December 30, 2025
Reinke responded, asserting that Rule 18 continuances should be “immediately and automatically granted,” dismissing my objection as mere “claims,” and again offering no trial-date conflict.
He also acknowledged he is one of two attorneys on the case and that co-counsel’s conflicts consisted of “hearings and meetings” in other cases.
January 1, 2026
I filed a Motion to Deny Personal Leave Continuance, supported by a detailed memorandum, showing:
the request was open-ended,
discovery deadlines had already been missed,
no necessity had been established,
and that granting delay would reward noncompliance while children continued to be harmed.
January 2, 2026
Without ruling on my motion, without addressing statutory mandates, and without findings regarding the children, the court approved the correspondence and moved the trial five months.
What This Continuance Really Is
Let’s be clear about what this is not.
This is not about Amy.
This is not about cooperation.
This is not about a legitimate scheduling conflict.
This is about power.
Power exercised without accountability.
An attorney requested a 30-day, open-ended continuance based on trying to schedule a medical appointment.
The court granted a five-month continuance—without analysis, without findings, and without enforcing a single order protecting children.
That is not discretion.
That is not neutrality.
That is not law.
That is a systemic pattern.
Why This Proves the System Is Broken
Minnesota’s laws are not suggestions.
Parenting time is mandatory unless specific findings are made.
Emotional and psychological harm to children is child abuse under Minnesota statute.
Courts are required to enforce their own orders.
Yet here, the system affirmatively chose to:
accommodate an attorney,
excuse missed deadlines,
ignore non-enforcement,
and delay resolution again.
Meanwhile:
I have not seen my children in one year.
I have not had meaningful time with them in eighteen months.
Parenting time orders remain unenforced.
Documented harm continues.
There is no mechanism within the state system to force compliance while the case is pending.
My Minnesota appellate petition confirmed this reality:
there is no path at the state level to compel courts to follow the law in real time.
This Is Why Federal Civil Rights Law Exists
This continuance doesn’t just delay my case.
It proves why federal courts and § 1983 civil-rights actions must exist.
When:
state courts refuse to enforce statutes,
refuse to enforce their own orders,
and repeatedly delay while children are harmed,
there must be another forum.
That forum is federal court.
The ball is now in my court.
My federal appeal is live.
A briefing schedule is in place.
And I will be filing my opening brief well before the January 20 deadline.
This post is not the end of the story.
It’s evidence.
Parenting Time Was Ordered — Repeatedly
Let me be very clear.
Parenting time was:
Agreed to
Ordered
Re-ordered
Re-affirmed
At multiple hearings, the court was told — and acknowledged — that parenting time was not happening.
At the November 10, 2025 hearing, the court specifically found that:
No effort had been made to facilitate parenting time
Counsel acknowledged this on the record
The excuse offered was contrary to an existing court order
The court reiterated that parenting time must occur to avoid contempt
And yet, even after that:
No parenting time occurred
No enforcement followed
No consequences were imposed
This is not a misunderstanding.
This is not a gray area.
This is not delay caused by complexity.
This is refusal to enforce the law.
The Real Problem: There Is No Enforcement Mechanism
Minnesota family court operates on a dangerous premise:
In Minnesota family court, enforcement is treated as optional. Orders are issued, violations are acknowledged, and nothing happens. That isn’t justice—it’s unchecked power operating without accountability.
There are no kings and no queens in a democracy. No official should be allowed to decide which laws apply and which can be ignored, especially when children are being harmed.
When enforcement is optional:
Abusers are empowered
Children are trapped
Parents are silenced
Delay becomes a weapon
And when delay becomes a weapon, harm compounds.
My children were already experiencing documented emotional and psychological harm in 2024 — harm that meets Minnesota’s statutory definition of child maltreatment.
State actors were aware.
The tools to intervene existed.
The law required action.
Instead, the system chose deferral.
That is not neutrality.
That is not discretion.
That is systemic failure.
Why This Matters Beyond My Case
If this can happen to me — with:
extensive documentation,
repeated court findings,
clear statutory mandates, and
relentless advocacy —
it can happen to any parent.
And it does.
Every day.
Parents are told to:
“wait for trial,”
“be patient,”
“let the process work,”
while their children suffer in the meantime.
But here is the question no one wants to answer:
If the judiciary fails at every stage where it is required to act — fails to enforce statutes, fails to enforce its own orders, fails to intervene when harm is documented, and fails to correct violations as they occur — what possible basis is there to believe it will suddenly make sound, lawful decisions at trial or in a final custody ruling?
A system that does not enforce the law during the process cannot be trusted to apply it correctly at the end.
That is not how justice works.
That is not how due process works.
And that is not how children are protected.
The Only Path Forward in Minnesota Is Reform
Based on everything I’ve experienced, there is no internal mechanism within Minnesota’s family court system to:
force enforcement of lawful orders,
stop enforcement of unlawful orders,
stop ongoing harm during litigation,
or hold courts accountable in real time.
That means the only state-level solution is legislative reform.
We need:
mandatory enforcement provisions,
real-time appellate or oversight review,
accountability for non-enforcement,
and recognition that delay itself is child abuse.
The Federal Case Is Still Alive
There is one piece of good news.
My federal appeal is still active.
The federal courts exist for a reason:
to provide a forum when state systems fail,
to protect constitutional rights,
to intervene when there is no adequate state remedy.
I now have a federal briefing schedule.
My first brief is due January 20, and I will be filing well before that.
I will write a separate post when that brief is complete.
For now, understand this:
This continuance proves the federal case is necessary.
When a state court system:
acknowledges harm,
refuses enforcement,
and extends delay anyway,
there must be another path.
That path is federal court.
That path is civil rights law.
That path is accountability.
Closing
Minnesota and the nation is outraged by fraud — as it should be.
But if we only care about fraud when money is involved, and not when children are being harmed, then our priorities are broken.
My fight is not just for my children.
It’s for every parent who has realized:
This is not a system that lacks options. It is a system that chooses not to enforce the law, plays procedural games with children’s lives, and retaliates against parents who demand accountability. That is not justice — it is institutional misconduct.
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—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.
"550 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over."
Ryan William Alvar
Parent and Plaintiff
Comments