I am a Minnesota father who has been raising children in this state since 2008. I have raised four kids here, built a professional career, and spent years contributing to my community as a scientist, educator, and clinical research leader.
Approximately three years ago, Clarence Patterson III served as counsel in my divorce proceedings. Since that time, I have come to understand what I can only describe as a highly aggressive, over-litigation-driven approach to family court.
From my experience, the strategy appeared to rely heavily on escalating filings, repeated motions, and the use of restraining order mechanisms early and forcefully. The allegations presented in court were, in my view, overwhelming, distorted, and not consistent with my documented history.
As a result of these actions, I was removed from my home and subjected to repeated legal threats that had a profound impact on my life.
To be clear, I have no criminal record. I served as a Clinical Research Director at the Minneapolis VA Hospital, working under Dr. Uzma Samadani, and was trained in human clinical research. I have no history of violence, have never owned a firearm, and there have been no incidents in the three years following my divorce.
Despite this, statements were made in court that portrayed me as mentally unstable and unfit to be a father. Allegations included claims about my mental health, my children’s perceptions of me, and even assertions that I posed a violent threat. I strongly dispute these claims.
One specific concern involved a statement that Dakota County Crisis had directly contacted counsel with a threat alert regarding me. I personally followed up with a supervisor at Dakota County and was informed that such a communication did not occur and would not be consistent with their data privacy practices.
In my case, these types of statements appeared to influence judicial outcomes, including findings related to medication compliance and mental health conditions that do not align with my medical records. My physician has documented that I do not have bipolar disorder.
The impact of these proceedings has extended beyond the courtroom. I have experienced reputational harm within my community, including among neighbors and school-related networks.
More broadly, my experience has raised serious concerns for me about how easily allegations—when repeated and amplified through litigation—can shape outcomes regardless of supporting evidence. I also believe there are structural incentives within the system, including for-profit custody evaluations and supervised visitation services, that can contribute to prolonged litigation.
As someone trained in scientific research, I intend to continue documenting and analyzing these patterns in a structured, evidence-based way. I have filed complaints with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and plan to pursue further analysis and publication in the areas of legal ethics, custody systems, and institutional decision-making.
Based on my experience, I would not recommend Clarence Patterson III. I encourage others to carefully review court records, ask detailed questions, and seek multiple perspectives when navigating high-conflict family court matters.
This experience has had a significant personal and professional impact on my life. I believe it is important that these concerns are documented and openly discussed so that others can make informed decisions and so that systems intended to serve families operate with fairness, accuracy, and accountability.