chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
February 03, 2022

Minnesota

ABUSE

CONSTITUTIONALITY

State v. Olson, 2016 WL 4420665 (Minn. Ct. App.). Defendant appealed conviction on four counts of child solicitation. Court reversed on count based on statute criminalizing engaging in communication that describes sexual conduct with someone reasonably believed to be a child. Court had previously ruled unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech not narrowly tailored to serve state’s compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation via Internet.

PORNOGRAPHY

Minnesota v. Muccio, 890 N.W. 2d 914 (Minn. 2017). The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minn. Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2a(2) is not substantially overbroad “in relation to its plainly legitimate sweep.” The statute criminalizes certain uses of electronic devices to engage in communication with a child relating to or describing sexual conduct. Although the statute regulates some speech that the First Amendment protects, it does not regulate a substantial amount of protected speech and is therefore not overbroad. 

PROTECTION ORDER

In re Schmidt, 795 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Father could seek protection order on behalf of son against grandfather who had allegedly assaulted son’s mother in home which mother shared with grandfather; domestic violence statute does not require person on whose behalf a protection order is sought to have directly suffered domestic abuse, only that it occurred within the family or household.

ADOPTION

BEST INTERESTS

In re S.G., 828 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2013). Trial court properly decided case based on best interests factors where there were competing adoption petitions by relatives and foster parents. Statute requiring court to first look at relatives’ petition and then foster parents’ did not require court to decide against or in favor of relative before moving on to consider foster parents’ petition. Decision that foster parent placement was in children’s best interests due to their special needs was proper. FULL SUMMARY

CUSTODY

PARENTAL RIGHTS

Rohmiller v. Hart, 811 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2012). Trial court erred in granting visitation with child’s aunt over father’s objection because she could not show she stood in loco parentis or that father was unfit. Further, court appeared to merely apply a best interests analysis regarding the aunt contrary to Troxel, and while it found that breaking all ties with child’s family would harm the child, father did not object to visitation with the grandfather.

DELINQUENCY

EXPUNGED RECORDS

In re J.J.P., 811 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). District court erred in denying petition for expungement of juvenile records from executive agency’s files after expunging its own records. Court’s concern about separation of powers issues lacked merit since the legislature crafted a statute that allowed expungement without limiting it to only judicial records. If the legislature had sought to impose such a limit, it could have done so.

DEPENDENCY

ADMISSIONS

In re M.K., 805 N.W.2d 856 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). District court abused its discretion by denying parents’ motions to withdraw admissions to dependency grounds because court and county mischaracterized ground as being solely based on the child’s needs and not in part on parental deficiencies and coerced parents into making admission by conditioning service provision, which the parents agreed with, on the parents’ admission.

INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT

In re M.R.P.-C., 794 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Trial court abused its discretion by granting paternal grandparents’ custody petition without inquiring whether ICWA applied to custody proceedings or conducting evidentiary hearing to determine whether grandparents met statutory requirements of de facto custodians; trial court has a duty to determine if ICWA applies when facts suggest subject child may be an Indian child.

In re R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Juvenile court could transfer preadoptive placement proceeding involving Indian child who was not domiciled or living within tribal reservation to tribal court; although Indian Child Welfare Act and Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act do not authorize or prohibit transfer, Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection Procedure specifically permits transfer.

JUVENILE JUSTICE

AGE DETERMINATION

State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 2011). District court’s order denying juvenile’s motion to dismiss indictment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction was immediately appealable. Juvenile claimed the indictment misstated his age at the time of the alleged crime and juvenile court, not district court, had subject matter jurisdiction. Determining the defendant’s age at the time of the offense finally determines his right to be tried in juvenile court and requires immediate review to ensure juvenile court protections are not lost. Full Summary

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

APPEALS

In re R.K., 901 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. 2017). Father was notified of filing of trial court’s order in dependency case by two different forms of service, resulting in different deadlines for filing notice of appeal. Based on plain language of relevant rules, supreme court concluded deadline for appeal was based on service by mail despite same-day electronic service on father’s attorney. 

BEST INTERESTS

In re K.S.F., 823 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). After finding grounds for termination, trial court properly concluded that termination rather than placement with the children’s grandmother was in their best interests. Determination was proper in light of fact that grandmother had over a year to position herself to be a caregiver for the children and only obtained housing a short time before trial, that the mother lived in the home as well, and mother had multiple unresolved issues.

CONSENT

In re J.L.L., 801 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Mother revoked her voluntary consent to termination before trial court made any findings of good cause or best interests of child, therefore trial court properly denied child welfare agency’s petition to terminate mother’s parental rights; although a change of mind or circumstances is insufficient to withdraw a voluntary termination order after it is made, there is nothing preventing a parent from withdrawing consent to termination before the court has accepted the consent and ordered termination.

NONCITIZEN CHILDREN

In re D.M.T.-R., 802 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Minnesota court had jurisdiction over child dependency matter involving termination of parental rights to two children who were not U.S. citizens; under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, including termination of parental rights, involving children who are not U.S. citizens but have lived in the U.S. for over six consecutive months before he dependency proceedings began.

PRIOR TERMINATIONS

In re J.W., 807 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). In appeal of trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to child, mother overcame presumption that she was unfit based on prior termination of her parental rights to other children. Mother’s parenting class instructors testified that she had made progress in her parenting and anger management skills. The foster and adoptive parents of mothers’ other children also testified in support of mother and said she acted appropriately at supervised visits with children.

SIBLINGS

In re M.A.H., 839 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). Trial court properly decided not to terminate parental rights of siblings based on parents’ failure to address child’s failure to eat adequately for many months, resulting in symptoms of starvation. While siblings were likely emotionally harmed by having participated in the treatment, including preventing him from snacking outside regular meal times, trial court acted within its discretion in determining a lesser remedy than termination was warranted for siblings who were not physically harmed.