Representative Cases

Representative Cases

El-Ghazzawy Law Offices have successfully represented clients before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court more than 30 times. Their representative cases follow:

  • Shreve v. Shreve, No. A16-0663 (Minn. App. 2017). The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s post-dissolution ruling that Husband was bound by a stipulated permanent maintenance obligation, notwithstanding Wife’s involvement in a long-term, non-marital relationship. Husband could not compel Wife to release her medical records and participate in adverse medical and vocational evaluations where the terms of the decree did not make maintenance contingent on Wife’s disability, or require Wife to waive her medical privacy. In defending against Husband’s modification motions, Wife did not thereby place her health status “in controversy.” (K. El-Ghazzawy and B. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Schallenberger v. Schallenberger, No. A09-1633 (Minn. App. 2010). In this post-decree marriage dissolution proceeding, the Consensual Special Magistrate’s denial of Wife’s motion to reduce child support was affirmed by the Court of Appeals because Wife failed to establish a good faith effort to become fully employed within her earning capacity. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Children of K.L., No. A10-118 (Minn. App. 2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed the CHIPS adjudication because there was clear and convincing evidence that the minor children were in need of protective services. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for the district court to make sufficient findings regarding the best interests of the children. (J. Alholinna)
  • In re Welfare of Children of B.J.M. , No. A09-1684 (Minn. App. 2010.: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Child of V.R.B. and W.J.B. , No. A08-1918 (Minn. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of the parents’ parental rights, denied the parents’ request to transfer custody of the children to a relative, and denied the parents’ motion to strike statements from the Guardian ad Litem’s Appellate Brief. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Children of R.K. and J.L.R. , No. A08-0876 (Minn. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights because the record provided clear and convincing evidence to support each of the statutory grounds for termination and established that the termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
    (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Children of D.F. and D.F. , No. A07-2239 (Minn. App. 2008). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision revoking the stay of Parents’ voluntary termination of parental rights and terminating their parental rights. (J. Alholinna)
  • In re Paternity and Custody of Baby Boy A., No. A07-452 (Minn. App. 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings and application of the law as to enforcing the parties’ gestational-surrogacy agreement, applying Illinois law as provided by the choice-of-law provision in the parties’ agreement, and (3) granting the request to change the child’s name. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Child of S.B. and D.W. , No. A07-0948 (Minn. App. 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of parental rights and the finding that termination is in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to strike portions of Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department’s brief on grounds that it contains documents outside of the record. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Children of R.M.B. and R.E.R. , No. A07-18 (Minn. App. 2007, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting Respondent tribe’s Petition to transfer jurisdiction of this child-protection proceeding to the tribal court. (J. Alholinna)
  • In re Welfare of Child of S.B. and D. W., No. A05-2386 (Minn. App. 2006). The Guardian ad Litem challenged the district court’s order transferring custody of a minor child to his grandmother. The Court of Appeals reversed because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that the transfer was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Ackerberg v. Ackerberg , No. A04-1645 (Minn. App. 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of joint legal custody, the denial of a mid-week overnight in the parenting time schedule, and the district court’s inclusion of a custody re-evaluation in the parties’ Decree.
    (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Clark v. Clark , No. A04-38 (Minn. App. 2004). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of joint legal and joint physical custody and reversed the district court’s denial of Wife’s request to set child support and remanded the matter to the district court for additional findings regarding child support.(K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of Children of Howe , No. C6-03-314 (Minn. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of parental rights because Mother was unable to parent her children due to her cognitive disability and because the county made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to improve her parenting skills. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Moore, Hennepin County v. James , No. C4-03-70 (Minn. App. 2003). The district court denied the county’s request for a continuance so that Mother could apply for a good-cause exemption from the requirement that she cooperate with the county in paternity adjudication proceedings. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and erred in dismissing the parentage proceedings. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Child of Haviland , No. C0-02-1822 (Minn. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Children of A. (J.) T. , Nos. C7-02-229, C3-02-440 (Minn. App. 2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights to her youngest child and the district court’s decision not to terminate parental rights as to two other children. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Rutz v. Rutz , 644 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. App. 2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Wife’s petition to move the residence of the parties’ children out of state. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Hoganson v. Bryant , No. C7-97-2384 (Minn. App. 1998). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to modify the parties’ stipulated judgment and decree as to child support, to not impute income to Husband, to reserve the issue of daycare, and the district court’s award of attorney fees.(K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of M. M ., No. C4-96-1893 (Minn. App. 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that when a child was found to be in need of protective services and had been placed in out-of-home placement, life insurance proceeds from his mother’s life insurance policy were resources attributable to child for purposes of the statute requiring that such resources be reimbursed to the county for costs of care, examination, or treatment of the child and that the statute governing money received on behalf of child as result of personal injury and placed in an account established by court did not apply to life insurance proceeds. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of R.T., No. C0-95-973 (Minn. App. 1995). The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of T.T. and T.T. , No. C0-95-780 (Minn. App. 1995, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of A.C., J.E., A.L.P., No. C5-95-502 (Minn. App. 1995, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Grandmother’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the custodial placement of her granddaughter and granddaughter’s half-sister, the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding custody of A.C. and J.P., and the court’s denial of her request for visitation rights. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of A.H., No. C1-94-2415 (Minn. App. 1995). The Court of Appeals dismissed the parents’ appeal because the parents’ claimed error was not raised in the district court and does not constitute a basis for relief under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of C.S.C. , No. C4-94-268 (Minn. App. 1994, review denied). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision that the foster parents did not have the right to intervene in the proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that the foster parents’ adoption petition was premature and the district court’s decision to hold a permanency hearing within one year of the children’s placement in foster care. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Lehar v. Ikola , No. C7-94-183 (Minn. App. 1994). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order directing Father to pay child support to Mother and affirmed the district court’s decision ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney fees. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • In re Welfare of A.H ., No. C6-93-1296 (Minn. App. 1994, review denied). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order removing a foster child from their foster home and denying their motion to waive agency placement for the filing of a petition to adopt the child. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Waterston v. Waterston , No. C9-93-1079 (Minn. App. 1993). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s refusal to amend certain provisions in the original judgment because the motion was untimely. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s finding that there has been no substantial change in circumstances when Husband exhausted his unemployment benefits without finding employment and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the change made the support amount unreasonable or unfair. (K. El-Ghazzawy)
  • Ma v. Ma , 483 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. App. 1992). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s refusal to vacate parties’ settlement stipulation because Husband failed to meet burden of proof to rebut the presumption of validity of parties’ Chinese marriage, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the parties’ stipulation, the trial court’s award of a lien to the former wife against the former husband’s joint tenancy interest in real property to secure property settlement award would be upheld. The Court of Appeals awarded Wife attorney fees incurred on appeal. (K. El-Ghazzawy)