Soohoo v. Johnson
2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, 2007 WL 1364749, 731 N.W.2d 815 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute permitting a court to grant visitation to a third party who has established a parent-child relationship with a child does not violate a fit parent's fundamental due process rights, provided the statute is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest in the child's welfare. To be constitutional, such a statute must require the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest and will not interfere with the custodial parent's relationship with the child.
Facts:
- Marilyn Johnson and Nancy SooHoo were in a 22-year domestic relationship and lived together.
- During their relationship, Johnson, as a single parent, adopted two children from China.
- SooHoo did not legally adopt the children but functioned as a co-parent, taking maternity leave, sharing in daily care, attending school conferences, and being listed on school forms as 'mother number two.'
- The children referred to SooHoo as 'mommy' and to SooHoo's parents as their grandparents.
- The relationship between Johnson and SooHoo ended in 2003 following a domestic incident that resulted in reciprocal orders for protection.
- Following their separation, SooHoo was barred from the family home and Johnson significantly restricted her contact with the children.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy SooHoo filed a petition in district court seeking custody or, alternatively, visitation with Marilyn Johnson's two minor children.
- The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found SooHoo was an 'interested third party' with standing, and granted her temporary visitation.
- After further hearings, the district court denied SooHoo's custody petition but granted her a comprehensive visitation schedule under Minn.Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4, over Johnson's constitutional objections.
- Johnson, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's decision.
- Johnson, as appellant, sought and was granted review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, with SooHoo as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Minnesota Statute § 257C.08, subd. 4, which allows a court to grant visitation to a third party who has resided with a child for over two years, unconstitutionally infringe upon a fit parent's fundamental due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children?
Opinions:
Majority - Page, Justice.
No, the statute does not unconstitutionally infringe upon a fit parent's fundamental rights. A parent's right to control the upbringing of their children is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, but it is not absolute. The state has a compelling interest as 'parens patriae' in protecting the welfare of children, which includes preserving established relationships with individuals who stand 'in loco parentis.' The Minnesota statute is narrowly tailored because, unlike the overly broad statute in Troxel v. Granville, it limits petitioners to those who have resided with the child for at least two years and have formed a parent-child relationship. To ensure the statute gives proper deference to a fit parent's decisions, the court reads into the statute a requirement that the petitioner prove all statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. The court also strikes down a separate provision, subdivision 7, for unconstitutionally placing the burden of proof on the custodial parent. Because the district court correctly found that SooHoo stood in loco parentis to the children and that visitation was in their best interests, the statute's application was constitutional.
Concurring - Anderson, G. Barry, Justice
Yes, I concur that the statute is constitutional and properly applied here. However, an award of visitation to a third party that is equivalent to what a non-custodial parent would receive, particularly with respect to alternating holidays, could constitute an abuse of discretion in other cases. In this specific case, the unique facts and the district court's detailed findings support the visitation award and show there was no abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision provides a constitutional framework for third-party visitation statutes in the wake of Troxel v. Granville. By applying strict scrutiny and imposing a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, the court balances a fit parent's fundamental rights against the state's interest in protecting a child's established, parent-like relationships. This ruling is significant for non-traditional families, as it validates the legal protection of 'de facto' or 'functional' parental bonds based on the role a person played in a child's life, rather than on biological or adoptive ties alone. It establishes a clear, heightened evidentiary burden for third parties seeking to intrude on a fit parent's autonomy, thereby creating a high but not insurmountable standard for obtaining court-ordered visitation.
