An order that forbids a man from contacting his ex-wife and children for as long as 50 years does not violate his rights, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
In a 23-page opinion upholding an order by a Washington County district judge, the court ruled 3-0 that a 50-year extension of an order for protection against James Bergstrom, 43, does not violate his free speech and due process rights.
According to the opinion, Bergstrom's ex-wife claimed the two had been married for three years when he began abusing her while she was pregnant with their first child; the opinion said he was convicted of assault and violating the order for protection the terms of his probation. He also spent time in jail and prison. The couple divorced in 2008.
In 2010, his ex-wife filed for a 50-year extension of an earlier order for protection based on his previous convictions and history of abuse. Bergstrom contested her allegations against him. The court agreed to extend the order. Bergstrom appealed, arguing that in addition to violating his due process and free speech rights, using his prior violations as a basis for the 50-year extension violated his due process rights.
The appeals court noted that the order for protection still offers Bergstrom the opportunity to contact his children and regain parenting time by completing therapy, which he hasn't done yet. In five years, he may also petition to modify the order for protection. Because he was granted a number of "procedural protections," the court reasoned, his rights remain intact.
Secondly, the extended order does not constitute double jeopardy regarding his earlier violation convictions because it's a civil sanction that is subject to change.
"[Bergstrom] can demonstrate changed circumstances by not violating the [order for protection] in the future, attending individual therapy, restoring his parenting time with his children, and otherwise demonstrating that he is not likely to harm respondent or the children," Judge Thomas Kalitowski wrote.
Abby Simons 612-673-4921
