Did Detective Dronen Use Coercion, Fraud to Elicit A Statement in Grazzini-Rucki Case?

Public Domain: http://absfreepic.com

Small town, Lakeville police, traveled an estimated 191 miles one chilly day, November 18, 2015, to a horse ranch in a quiet corner of Minnesota. Greeting them in the gravel driveway were Star Tribune reporters, who had been waiting 3 hours to break the biggest story their podunk paper had seen since the 1991 Halloween Blizzard covered trick-or-treaters in 8.2 inches of ghostly white snow. Star Tribune cameras were on the scene to catch every dramatic minute as the runaway Rucki sisters were discovered after a multi-agency search warrant.

Even outside their jurisdiction, Detective Jim Dronen and Kelli Coughlin were territorial over this case – that of the runaway Rucki sisters, who went missing in April 2013 to escape an abusive home that family court would not protect them from. These two detectives would accomplish what Judge Knutson could not do despite 3,400 court orders issued against the mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, who was left homeless, destitute and torn from the children who were “my world” after the court’s illegal actions. What reunification therapist James Gilbertson tried but failed at, as he recommended “unconventional” methods of therapy such as forcing the children to sit in at court hearings, and forcing the children to have a face-to-face visit with their father the day he was due in court for violating a no contact order (no contact meaning with the children). What Guardian ad Litems Julie Friedrich and Laura Miles attempted by denying the abuse and shoving the truth down their throats, as they gagged – these children were going back into the care of their abusive father.

Was the interrogation method used on Doug Dahlen coercive, fraudulent? And were coercive methods used on the teenage Rucki sisters? A new video from Lion News offer a glimpse into the interrogation of Doug Dahlen.

Police can use a variety of methods to get information or elicit a confession – they can lie, exaggerate and even use some forms of trickery to obtain information from a subject, to get a confession. The one thing police can not do is coerce a confession. Coercion is defined as physical or psychological force, threats or intimidation. Similarly, trickery that results in a false confession is not allowed.

The Lion News Video (below) offers excerpts of the police interviews from the Rucki investigation, as well as an excerpt of a police interview between Detective Dronen (#4816) and Doug Dahlen that occurred on November 18, 2015.

Doug is one of the defendants in the high-profile Grazzini-Rucki case, who, along with his wife, sheltered the runaway Rucki girls at his therapeutic horse ranch for over 2 years.

This interview occurred AFTER the Rucki girls were found living at the Ranch.

Doug and Gina Dahlen

(4:11) Doug Dahlen calls wife, Gina, “Hello… Hey.. Did you get my message? Can you come home? Um police are here and they’re talking about what they’re going to do with the Girls. They can stay here ’til get this sorted out or whether they have to go and stay somewhere else or what. They um the mom’s in jail and they’re saying if the Girls go in and take care of this, that they can get their mother out of jail and uh hopefully get this straightened out. As of now I don’t really think they know what they’re going to do with them…”

COERCION: A person who has power over another compels someone to act or make a choice by force, threat or overcoming their own individual will. Coercion can involve fraud to compel someone to do something they would not ordinarily do.

It is coercive to tell Doug Dahlen, and the Girls (if they were given a similar message) that if they “straighten this out” i.e. talk to police, and tell police what they want to hear, that their mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) can get out of jail. Another implied threat is the unanswered question on where the Girls will go – that cooperation may result in the Girls being able to stay at the Ranch. Notice also that Doug is talking to police without the benefit of an attorney.

Both of the Rucki sisters were minors at the time they were found, and were in a vulnerable state. For the last 2 years, the Girls considered the Dahlens as family, and grew accustomed to their life on the Ranch. The Girls had ample opportunity to leave, and return to their father, but chose to stay. Now these Girls were losing their home – for a second time in their life, a traumatic upheaval (the first when Sandra was forced out of the home, and their lives in Sept. 2012). Where were the Girls going – they could not stay with the Dahlens, and threatened to run away if returned to father, David Rucki, That is what makes this coercive – applying pressure, and compelling testimony under duress; especially on vulnerable teen girls. The fraud is stating that testimony could get Sandra Grazzini-Rucki out of jail, that simply would not happen, and police knew it.

NO child should be placed in this type of situation by police. There are organizations that specialize in conducting forensic interviews with children and vulnerable adults that could have been utilized. These organizations typically offer family counseling and community resources as well. An age appropriate, trauma informed approach could have assisted the police investigation in a way that would minimize stress on the Girls, and allow them to be heard. But that never happened. Instead the Lakeville police pushed their agenda… and silenced the Girls as so many in Dakota County had done before.

Detective Dronen. Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com, sunthisweek

Another element of psychological coercion… and testimony from Doug that supports the Girls were abuse victims.

(5:58) Detective Dronnen states, “You said when the girls first got here, they were afraid?”

Doug, “Beyond afraid. They were terrified. I’ve never seen a kid so scared. I can’t emphasize that to you… I’ve seen kids in pretty rough shape, I’ve never seen one that was truly afraid for their life until I saw them.”

Detective Dronnen, “Did they ever tell you why they were afraid?”

Doug, “No, one time I went in and S.R. was curled up in the bathroom, in a fetal position, sobbing uncontrollably. ” <– This is called REGRESSION, and is a sign of severe trauma or abuse. Regression is the act of returning to an earlier stage of behavioral or physical development; this can occur because trauma not only affects the mind and emotion, but is also stored in the body, at a cellular level. Trauma also affects body chemistry.

Detective Dronnen, “Did she ever talk about anything that happened at home?”

Doug, “Just how terrible it was. Never gave much for details… ” Doug goes on to say S.R. did not like “being touched by a man”, even in common social interactions. <– Note S.R. may have found someone else to confide in; if she had an aversion to men it makes sense that she would not trust or open up to a man, even Doug.

In the next excerpt, Detective Dronen gives Doug Dahlen his version of what happened with the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and custody case, and omits all mention of domestic abuse and child abuse allegations or David Rucki’s criminal history. This is done intentionally! Detective Dronen is controlling the interview, and feeding information to Doug with the intent of changing his perspective, and ultimately changing testimony that may support that abuse happened to the Rucki girls.

Keep in mind Detective Dronen previously dismissed an OFP violation against David Rucki wiped it completely from MNCIS. Dronen personally knew about the abuse allegations, and purposely withheld this information when giving his version of the Grazzini-Rucki divorce and child custody dispute to Doug.

Det. Dronen deletes OFP violation against David Rucki, wipes from MNCIS. Source: https://redherringalert.wordpress.com

Doug sounds incredulous as he is listening, and relies on past experience to weigh Detective Dronen’s words. When Doug brings up his own experiences with a stressful divorce, Detective Dronen adapts Doug’s comments to supportive the narrative he is pushing.This means Dronen is shaping Doug’s perspective, and changing his recollection on a past event. This type of questioning is extremely damaging because Detective Dronen is feeding information, ideas and emotions into Doug that were not previously there. Doug has no one else to offer additional information, he is reliant solely on Dronen.

Detective Dronen tries to sell Doug his version of events – that parental alienation had occurred, that Sandra is mentally ill and completely withholds any information about the allegations of abuse. If this sounds plausible, you too maybe a victim of psychological coercion.

Key elements of psychological coercion involve

1. Rejecting alternate information and individual opinions.Communication is controlled, permissible subjects and thoughts are directed. Alternate ideas or free thought is shut down or guided back into desired parameters.
2. Forcing the victim to re-evaluate what has happened, their experience in a negative way. The victim is made to feel like a “bad” person or alternately, is made to feel bad about their experience and made to feel that adopting the chose perspective is redemptive or “good”.
3. Controlled communication produces efforts are  to destabilize and undermine the subject’s consciousness, sense of reality, sense of self, emotions and defense mechanisms. The subject wrestles with internal questions, doubts, and then reinterprets their experience to  adopts the perspective given to them.
4. Creating triggers in the subject by eliciting strong emotional reactions by manipulating their perspectives, and what is important to them i.e. home, family, ethical values, past experiences, past hurts, guilt, anxiety etc

Psychological coercion does not leave a bruise or a mark but it’s impact can not be underestimated.The intense pressure of psychological coercion can and does weaken a person’s will power and limit their ability to make free choices. The victim is unable to use discernment, judgement or call on help as they normally would had they not been manipulated.  According to one expert, The Neurotypical Suite, “The cumulative effect of psychological coercion can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force or threats.”

Police need to use the power invested in them carefully and avoid any actions or behavior that is or  could be interpreted as coercive.

Statements that are made under coercion are not made through an exercise of free will.  If Doug Dahlen – or the Rucki girls – were told by Detective Dronen, or any member of the Lakeville police, that if they “straightened things out” and gave a statement to police, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki could “get out of jail”  that is coercion. It is eliciting a statement based on fraud, and is applying duress with the underlying message of if you do not comply, she will remain in jail. To excuse this behavior as being part of the job, as policeman, opens the door to abuses of power –  abuses of power have destroyed the Grazzini-Rucki family, and if not exposed and stopped, anyone of us could become a victim next.

Note: This video include slides that are somewhat editorialized, the audio content is what applies to this article, plz use discernment.

 

 

Also Read:

Media Mayhem: Has Stahl and Brodkorb Gone Too Far Reporting on the Grazzini-Rucki Case??

Shocking Interview from Grazzini-Rucki Case – Brodkorb Goes Rogue, Dronen Wants to Make Rucki Girls Wards of the State, More…

“I honestly believe Judge Knutson is psychotic, that I have no doubt. I’ve sat in his courtroom, the guy is absolutely crazy. I believe there needs to be a lot of changes in family court as well….”

“If David Rucki is as crazy as these Girls say he is, then I don’t know what he is capable of...” ~ Lori Musolf, prosecution witness

Lawless Lakeville, Dakota County, Minn:  Lion News has released a shocking audio of the Lakeville police interview between Detective Dronen and Lori Musolf, witness for the Prosecution in the Grazzini-Rucki case. This interview covers a variety of subjects including abuse allegations, family court failures, and interference in the investigation of the runaway Rucki girls by Michael Brodkorb.

During the interview Detective Dronen admits that confidential information about the open investigation into the disappearance of the Rucki girls had been obtained by Brodkorb. Dronen was concerned because Brodkorb was contacting witnesses without the knowledge or consent of the Lakeville police, who were handling the investigation. Lakeville’s investigation into the missing Rucki girls became contaminated as Brodkorb contacted witnesses before the police could secure the information and then leaked sensitive details in his articles, which were widely distributed. 

Additional testimony from Doug Dahlen reveals that the Star Tribune reporters, Brandon Stahl and Michael Brodkorb, knew ahead of time that police would raid the ranch to take the Girls. Dahlen states that reporters from the Star Tribune were calling the Grant County Courthouse a day ahead of time, and were asking when a warrant would be served.  This leak of information, and the inappropriate involvement of the Star Tribune has created an unsafe environment for the Rucki girls, whose safety and well-being came second to the media sensation their “recovery” would generate.

Doug and Gina Dahlen cared for the runaway Rucki sisters, who refused to return to father David Rucki because he abused them. Source, ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-sisters-missing-years-lived-plain-sight-time/story?id=38190862

Ironically, Brodkorb blasted all the adults who “did nothing” while the Rucki girls were missing – and now he qualifies as one of those adults, seeing that he had knowledge of where the Girls were staying for at least 24 hours and did nothing to notify local police or intervene. This happening while Brodkorb admits father, David Rucki, was an emotional wreck over the disappearance of his daughters. So Brodkorb also lied to Rucki and did not disclose to him that he knew where the Girls were, and let him suffer. All of this so Brodkorb could break the the story that would make his comeback after an adulterous affair, and a drinking problem destroyed his political career and nearly ended his life.

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Also in the interview, Musolf discloses that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was afraid of ex-husband David Rucki, and specifically stated “she acted like she was terrified of this man” and “she thought he would kill her if he had the chance“. Musolf comments that Sandra used burner phones because she was afraid Rucki would track her down (a tracking device was placed in the wheel well of a friend’s vehicle. Police traced that device back to Rucki’s house). The behaviors Musolf describe in Sandra are common in women who have suffered abuse. In the criminal trial, it was portrayed that Sandra used burner phones to avoid arrest for the disappearance of her daughters. Evidence suggests otherwise, yet Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena  promotes a lie. This is prosecutorial misconduct.

Musolf candidly expressed fear of Rucki and stated she “did not trust David Rucki” and was concerned that he would harm her because she assisted his daughters in running away, and was a friend of Sandra. This is coming from a prosecution witness who testified against Sandra, yet is also building her case. Sandra plead the affirmative defense in charges that she hid her daughters from Rucki, meaning she took action to protect her children from imminent harm or abuse. Sandra was found guilty of felony deprivation of parental rights; critics argue she could not prove abuse happened yet evidence that abuse did happen continues to mount even after Sandra’s conviction.

David Rucki

In a bizarre twist. Musolf tells Detective Dronen that she believes that the Rucki girls have “alot of psychological” and should not be placed with either parent when they are found. What is so unbelievable is that Musolf is a self-proclaimed victim advocate. Musolf’s attitude and actions could pose a risk of harm to an abuse victim or other vulnerable person because she shows no understanding about abuse, and its effects on children. Also troubling is that Musolf is basically stating that Sandra, the victim, has said or done something that is comparable to the horrific abuse Rucki inflicted on his family. NO victim of abuse could ever do anything to justify the abuse inflicted on them. If a so-called “advocate” does not understand that, what is she really advocating for? Detective Dronen agrees with Musolf, and says he thinks the Rucki girls should become wards of the state to get the help they need. 

Wards of the state? The “help” the county offered has done nothing but bring pain and upheaval to the Grazzini-Rucki family. How much more damage will Dakota County inflict on Sandra and her children? .

Help raise awareness, and fight for a worthy cause – please comment, like, repost and share.

Public Domain: http://chainimage.com/

 

Note: Musolf is the only person who has not been criminally charged for her role in assisting the runaway Rucki girls. Musolf remained in contact with the Rucki girls in the days after they ran away and arranged their interview with Fox 9. During the Fox 9 interview, both Girls disclosed allegations of abuse committed by their father and expressed fear of him. Musolf was listed as a witness for the Prosecution in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial but did not testify in court.

Special thanks to Lion News for posting this video 🙂

Potential State Witness Wrote Letter to Judge Knutson – Criticizing Court’s Failure to Protect Rucki Children from Abuse

Lori Musolf, potential witness to be called by the State in the parental deprivation case against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki wrote a letter to Judge Knutson in May 2013, asserting her belief that the Rucki children were abused by their father, David Rucki, and were “terrified” of him. Lori criticizes Judge Knutson’s handling of the case and desperately prays “that the MN Appellant Court will put a stop to this insanity”.

With such strong beliefs, how did Lori become a potential witness for the State? And with such a drastic change in her story, does she have any credibility?

 

       Lori Musolf: “I hate corrupt

judicial and social services

may they rot in hell.”

 

Lori describes herself as an “investigator”, “advocate” and “child advocate”. She also claims to have worked with Fox 9 news. Through the Carver County Corruption blog, she began to network with and offer her support to parents involved in family court proceedings. Lori explains in a Twitter post, “Sometimes people have to stand up to corrupt government.”

Lori’s main interest was in exposing perceived corruption in Meeker County. She worked with a group of citizens in these efforts and with the help of Trish van Pilsum from Fox 9, garnered publicity when van Pilsum covered two separate stories based on the Meeker citizen group’s efforts.

Below is a video of Lori hard at work in “exposing corruption” in Meeker County.

 

Lori’s Letter to Judge David Knuston –

You Have Sentenced the Rucki Children       

to a Life of Pure Hell and Danger

Judge David L Knutson

 

Lori’s letter to Judge Knutson was published on the Carver County Corruption blog in May 2013. Though the blog has been taken down, we were able to get a copy, with screenshots to validate its existence.

 

In the letter, Lori says about the Rucki girls “these young girls are obviously terrified of David Rucki. For these two teenagers to be on the run, obviously they are scared for their lives.”

 

Lori also criticizes Judge Knutson and says that he has made some “huge mistakes”. Lori writes to Judge Knutson “ I sincerely hope that you can look at ALL of the facts of this case, realize that you have made some huge mistakes, allowed other huge mistakes to be made and that you will  someday allow these children to live their lives in the home where they feel protected. ”

Lori also warns Judge Knutson, “In my opinion David Rucki is a loose cannon and you are playing right into his hands.”

Public Domain: http://www.clipartlord.com

 

Lori Musolf Responds to a Cry for Help

From the Missing Rucki Girls

After the Rucki girls ran away from the (temporary) custody of paternal aunt, Tammy Love, on April 19, 2013, they reached out to Lori for help (from the police report generated by Det. Dronen on 8/6/2015), “Musolf told me that a day or two after S and G ran away from home, one of them had called her but she didn’t know which one. The girls told her that they wanted to tell their story to the media, and her to try to use her connections to get their story on the news. Musolf stated that the girls would not tell her were they were or give them a phone number to call them back but told her they would call her every half an hour or so to try and arrange an interview.”

 

The Rucki girls did call as promised, and each time they made contact Lori had an opportunity to call the police or notify the authorities on the whereabouts of these two missing children. She could have even made an anonymous report if she had any fear or concern. Lori consciously, and intentionally, chose NOT to make that call, as her phone rang every half hour, she spoke to the Rucki girls, and offered her support.

In May 2013, Lori arranged an interview between the Rucki girls and Trish van Pilsum of Fox 9, (police report),”She was present when the interview was conducted, and has asked the girls when it was over if they were safe, and they told her they were. She saw S and G walking to a fast food restaurant to get picked up when Musolf and van Pilsum left Sauk Center to interview Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.” After the interview aired, Musolf assisted the girls by actively promoting their story, sharing web links and speaking out against what she viewed a “corrupt court system” that was responsible for their suffering. As time passed, Lori remained silent on what she knew about the missing girls, protecting them still.

Lori’s Story Changes… with a Little Help from Michael Brodkorb

With such strong beliefs, how did Lori become a potential witness for the State? This means Lori is defending the “corrupt” family court system she once opposed. Why??

According to the police report, on July 24, 2015 Brandon Stahl called Det. Dronen to inquire about updates on the case and discuss a tip that he had received. That tip led police to speak to a witness who then mentioned Lori Musolf by name, and made this statement, “..if Sandra knew where the girls were, Musolf would know as well.” The witness then provided Det. Dronen with Lori’s contact information. But before Det. Dronen could find Lori, Michael Brodkorb had already located her and spoken to her. This is clearly interference in an open police investigation.

Officer Dronen. Source: sunthisweek.com

Lori says in her August 6, 2015 police interview with Officer Dronen that she was once a strong supporter of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki until she started reading articles written in the Star Tribune, and began to doubt the abuse allegations she once defended, “She began to take notice of the case when Brandon Stahl and Michael Brodkorb’s articles began appearing in the Star Tribune.”

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

Lori’s doubts were reinforced when she spoke to Brodkorb, what information he shared with her is unknown, (from the police report) “She also stated that she had been contacted by Michael Brodkorb on 8/2/15. While she told me she didn’t tell Brodkorb anything, she stated that it really made her start digging into the case.” 

Lori must have known that her involvement with the Rucki girls could lead to criminal charges. From the police report, ”Musolf told me that she thought the friends (name omitted to protect their privacy) given Brodkorb her number, and she believed they were trying to pin things on her.” Friends gave Lori’s phone number to Brodkorb… keep in mind the lead that led police to these “friends” came from Brandon Stahl.

 

Has Lori made a deal at the expense of the Rucki girls?

Lori has never been criminally charged with her involvement in the case, though she clearly has aided and abetted two runaway teens. 

Edited versions of Musolf’s statement were included in criminal complaints against the Dahlens and were also included in the search warrant application for Dede Evavold. Lori may also be called as a witness to testify against Sandra. Did Lori make a deal to avoid charges?

Lori wrote to Judge Knutson, “David Rucki has a history of domestic abuse witnessed by these same children. How can you possibly think that putting these children’s lives in danger is ok?” Answer that Lori.

Given that the State’s case has largely relied on suppressing  evidence and witness testimony of abuse, stalking and violent behavior from David Rucki, if Lori is called to the witness stand, and this letter is introduced, it may be one of few allegations of abuse, and related documentation, brought to the jury.

That is, if court does not interfere with Lori’s vacation.

http://carvercountycorruption.com/2013/05/20/letter-from-child-advocate-to-judge-david-l-knutson/

 

Letter From Child Advocate To Judge David L. Knutson

Posted on May 20, 2013

 

Dear Judge David L. Knutson,

 

As an advocate I am appalled at your court orders involving the Rucki case. I cannot fathom why you think teenagers have no choices in their lives, especially children who believe their lives are in danger. I hope you watched the Fox9 report on the Rucki case. I would like to point out a few things that I believe you may want to think about.

 

First, these young girls are obviously terrified of David Rucki. For these two teenagers to be on the run, obviously they are scared for their lives.

 

Did you notice how obvious it was that David Rucki knew exactly what conversation the girls talked about concerning the threats of him shooting them?

Quotes from the fox9 story “The Rucki girls told FOX 9 their father sat them down at the kitchen table and threatened to shoot them and their mother.” David states, “What I think I said is, ‘What do you want me to do? Put a bullet in my head so you don’t have to deal with this?’”

Think? He obviously was in a rage during this conversation.

 

David Rucki has a history of domestic abuse witnessed by these same children. How can you possibly think that putting these children’s lives in danger is ok? What could you possibly be thinking?

 

David Rucki said the Rucki case file is the biggest in Dakota County Family Court. Is he proud of this? Why would he even elaborate on that if he didn’t take some pride in it? Former owner of Rucki trucking? I hope his employees found this amusing and come forward.

 

Second, David Rucki’s attorney Ms. Elliot claims, and I quote from the Fox9 story, “He probably did have a short temper. There were five kids. Things get crazy. Did he ever harm them? No,” said Elliot. “Maybe he didn’t try hard enough to stay in contact with them when this was going on thinking if things would calm down, it would go back to the way it was — but it went in the other direction.” He probably did have a short temper. Obviously he did if he is talking about shooting himself in the head. “There were five kids. Things get crazy.” Wow, really? I have five children and four grandchildren and nothing in my home has been crazy enough to allow me to be violent or threaten my children. Ms. Elliot also stated, “Did he ever harm them… No” How could Ms. Elliot possibly know this? Was she there? Unbelievable that someone in the field of law could make such ridiculous statements as if they were facts. I believe Ms. Elliot has done this repeatedly throughout this case. Such a sad case when a judge allows someone like Ms. Elliot to conduct herself in this manner. Is Ms. Elliot the person running the show making you look like a fool?

 

Ms. Elliot goes on to state, “”They tried three different therapists or professionals in the Twin Cities to try reunification while the children were still living with their mom and it just didn’t work,” Do you really think that reunification with a threatening abusive person should work? These children are terrified of this man and they know that neither you or the therapists on this case will listen and have sentenced them to a life of pure hell and danger. This is absolutely appalling. How can you sentence these children to this life?

 

Third, Mr. Reitman reeks bias in this case. How can he even consider the fact that only the mother has created parental alienation? Have you heard the audio’s of David Rucki’s messages to his children blaming their mom for everything? What is even more appalling is the fact that what I would refer to as a “hired gun”, Mr. Reitman, believes that children should be forced to visit with a father, even if sexual abuse is an issue, because of lack of evidence. Are children supposed to say, “Hold on dad, I have to get the video camera to record this as evidence?” I can only hope the sexual abuse advocates go after any license this monster holds. I would say this story exposed Mr. Reitman for what he is……a monster!

 

Last but not least…. Shame on you for allowing this family to be torn apart by your orders. Shame on you for forcing children into a relationship with a father they are terrified of. Shame on you for forcing these children to make the drastic decision to go on the run in order to protect themselves. Shame on David Rucki for threatening these children and helping to destroy their lives with his continuing insane actions. Shame on Ms. Elliot for allowing any of this and defending this father. Shame on Dr Reitman for his sadistic beliefs. Shame on our judicial system for not making all of you accountable for your actions.

 

In cases like this I have to wonder how our system got to the point that destroying families in today’s society is ok. I think of all of the children that have been murdered by their parents in disputes and I have to wonder how you could put those children in this position. How will you feel if the next time David Rucki loses control, one of these children are severely injured or worse yet dead. In my opinion David Rucki is a loose cannon and you are playing right into his hands.

 

I sincerely hope that you can look at ALL of the facts of this case, realize that you have made some huge mistakes, allowed other huge mistakes to be made and that you will  someday allow these children to live their lives in the home where they feel protected. How can you possibly think that putting children in danger is the thing to do? I can’t even begin to wrap my head around your reasoning. I can only pray that the MN Appellant Court puts a stop to this insanity.

Sincerely,

 

Lori Musolf

Child Advocate

(Screen Shots of Letter Below)