Heidbreder v. Carton, C0-01-739.

Decision Date13 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. C0-01-739.,C0-01-739.
Citation645 N.W.2d 355
PartiesDale "J.R." HEIDBREDER, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Kathleen Jean CARTON, a/k/a Katie Carton, a/k/a Kate Carton, Respondent, M.J.P., et al., Respondents.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Mark A. Olson, Olson Law Office, Burnsville, for appellant.

Jill Alise Adkins, Rinke Noonan, et al., St. Cloud, for Carton, respondent.

Wright S. Walling, Walling & Berg, P.A., Minneapolis, for M.J.P. and M.B.P., respondents.

Cheryl Speeter Margoles, Speeter, Johnson, Hamilton & Wurst, Minneapolis, Laura Susan Arvold, Children's Home Society of Minnesota, St. Paul, for amicus curiae Children's Home Society.

Amy M. Silberberg, Afton, for amicus curiae for Lutheran Social Service.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Justice.

Appellant Dale "J.R." Heidbreder, an Iowa resident, registered with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry 31 days after his former girlfriend Katie Carton gave birth to a girl, K.M.C. After registering, Heidbreder commenced a paternity action in Stearns County District Court in an attempt to block the pending adoption of K.M.C. in Minnesota. The prospective adoptive parents, respondents M.J.P. and M.B.P., intervened and moved to dismiss the paternity action under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 on the grounds that Heidbreder's suit was barred under Minn.Stat. § 259.52, subd. 8 (2000), because Heidbreder was not entitled to notice of the adoption petition under Minn.Stat. § 259.49 (2000) and he failed to register with the Fathers' Adoption Registry within 30 days of K.M.C.'s birth. The district court treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. The district court granted respondents summary judgment and the court of appeals affirmed. We also affirm.

In November 1999, Carton, Heidbreder's girlfriend at the time, informed him that she was pregnant and due in August 2000. At the time, both lived in Fort Madison, Iowa. Carton was 18 years old and had graduated from high school in the spring of 1999. Heidbreder was a year older. According to Heidbreder, he and Carton had one discussion about adoption early in Carton's pregnancy. Carton expressed some interest in exploring adoption but Heidbreder told her he was "absolutely against" adoption and that he believed adoption was "not right." Heidbreder testified in his deposition that Carton told him she would "never ever" put his child up for adoption. While respondents dispute whether Carton made an affirmative promise to Heidbreder not to put the child up for adoption, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Heidbreder as the nonmoving party at the summary judgment stage and assume, for purposes of our decision, that Carton did in fact make such a promise to Heidbreder during their discussion of adoption.

In the spring of 2000, Carton moved out of her mother's house and went to Carthage, Illinois, for approximately 2 weeks. She then moved back to her mother's house. In June 2000, Carton and Heidbreder rented an apartment together in Fort Madison. Carton paid the security deposit and the rent for the month of June. Heidbreder occasionally paid for meals for Carton, but he never provided financial support to Carton for pregnancy-related expenses.

While Carton and Heidbreder were living together, Carton learned that her mother was moving to Minnesota. Carton's relationship with her mother was strained because of the pregnancy and because Carton's mother believed Heidbreder did not treat Carton well. Carton told Heidbreder she would not move to Minnesota with her mother. However, Heidbreder knew Carton had other relatives living in Minnesota.

Carton and Heidbreder argued during the time they lived together. In mid-June, Carton decided to leave Heidbreder. Carton testified in her deposition that she left Heidbreder because they were not getting along. Heidbreder testified that he did not know why Carton left but that at the time she left, Carton was "scared and confused."

Carton moved to St. Cloud, Minnesota, and lived with her grandparents for a few days. She then moved to New Beginnings, a home for pregnant teenage girls in St. Cloud. Carton's mother moved to Minnesota in late June or early July.

While Carton maintained contact with Heidbreder through e-mail, she did not tell him where she was and she instructed her family and friends not to give Heidbreder any information about her location. Although Heidbreder asked for information, Carton's family and friends refused to tell him where Carton was. Heidbreder testified in his deposition that he believed Carton had returned to Illinois and he never considered the possibility that Carton was in Minnesota because of Carton's poor relationship with her mother.

According to Heidbreder, after Carton left he met with an attorney in Iowa to discuss visitation and child support. Heidbreder testified he did not discuss his rights in the event Carton put the child up for adoption because he did not believe Carton would do that. However, he also testified that the attorney told him that his child could not be adopted in Iowa without his consent. The attorney and Heidbreder considered hiring a private detective to find Carton, but never did so, and other than talking to Carton's family and friends, Heidbreder did not take any steps to locate Carton. Nor did Heidbreder take any steps to commence a paternity action, to register with the Iowa Declaration of Paternity Registry under Iowa Code § 144.12A (2001), or to learn whether the laws of Illinois—where Heidbreder believed Carton was—required him to do anything to preserve his parental rights.1 Heidbreder explained in his deposition that he did not take any action after talking to the attorney because he and the attorney "figured [Carton] would * * * send [Heidbreder] papers."

While living at New Beginnings, Carton decided to give her child up for adoption. Through the Children's Home Society (CHS), Carton selected the couple she wanted to adopt K.M.C., respondents M.J.P. and M.B.P. During a meeting with a representative from CHS, Carton expressed concern that Heidbreder would stop the adoption. The representative explained to Carton that under Minnesota law, she was not required to name Heidbreder on the birth certificate and that if he was not named on the birth certificate, Heidbreder could not prevent the adoption unless he registered with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry no later than 30 days after the birth of the child.

Carton gave birth to a girl, K.M.C., on August 12, 2000. Carton did not identify a father on K.M.C.'s birth certificate and the space for identifying K.M.C.'s father was left blank. K.M.C. left the hospital with respondents on August 14, 2000, and respondents filed a petition to adopt K.M.C. in Washington County District Court.

On September 12, 2000, 31 days after K.M.C.'s birth, Heidbreder learned from a third party that Carton was in Minnesota, had given birth to a girl and had put her up for adoption. Heidbreder contacted Carton by e-mail. That night, Carton told Heidbreder over the telephone that she had given birth and had put the child up for adoption. She also told him it was too late for him to stop the adoption. The same day, Heidbreder found a website with information on the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry and completed and mailed the necessary forms. The forms were postmarked September 12, 2000, 31 days after K.M.C.'s birth.

Heidbreder then commenced a paternity action in Stearns County District Court seeking a paternity adjudication and custody of K.M.C. Carton counterclaimed for custody in the event Heidbreder's attempt to block the adoption of K.M.C. was successful. Pursuant to a stipulation between Heidbreder, Carton, and respondents, the district court allowed respondents to intervene. Action on respondents' adoption petition was stayed pending resolution of Heidbreder's paternity action. K.M.C. has remained in respondents' care throughout these proceedings.

Respondents moved to dismiss Heidbreder's paternity action on the grounds that Minn.Stat. § 259.52, subd. 8, barred Heidbreder from asserting parental rights to K.M.C. because he failed to register with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry before K.M.C. was more than 30 days old and he was not otherwise entitled to notice of an adoption petition under Minn.Stat. § 259.49, subd. 1(b) (2000). Heidbreder argued that his failure to timely file should be excused because Carton engaged in fraud by failing to disclose her location. He also challenged the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. §§ 259.49 and 259.52.

The district court treated respondents' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 (allowing district court to treat motion to dismiss as motion for summary judgment if matters outside the pleadings are presented). The district court granted respondents summary judgment.

The district court held that Heidbreder could not proceed with his paternity action because he was not entitled to notice of an adoption proceeding under any of the criteria listed in Minn.Stat. § 259.49, subd. 1(b), and he failed to timely register with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry under Minn.Stat. § 259.52. It concluded that Heidbreder's failure to timely register was not excused under Minn.Stat. § 259.52, subd. 8, because Heidbreder had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it was "not possible" for him to register before K.M.C. was more than 30 days old or that his failure to timely register was "through no fault of his own." The court concluded that it was possible for Heidbreder to timely register in Minnesota because he knew Carton was due in August 2000, knew she was hiding from him, and knew that there were a limited number of places where she could be: in Iowa with her father, in Illinois where she lived in the spring of 2000, or in Minnesota where her mother...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Carlton v. State, No. A10–2061.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 18 Julio 2012
    ...law recognized no such actions on the theory that a claim for personal injuries died with the victim”); see also Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 363, 370 (Minn.2002) (finding that because Minnesota did not historically recognize a putative father's parental rights, a provision in Minn......
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 2016
    ...Ct.App.1996), on which the juvenile court in this case also relied, and cases from other jurisdictions, see, e.g., Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 369–70 (Minn.2002), Hylland v. Doe, 126 Or.App. 86, 867 P.2d 551, 553, 556–57 (1994), and In re Adoption of B.B.D., 984 P.2d 967, ¶¶ 2–6, ......
  • In re Adoption of A.A.T.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 2008
    ...of parenthood" and "show that he has taken concrete actions to grasp his opportunity to be a father"); Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 372-73 n. 12 (Minn.), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1046, 123 S.Ct. 621, 154 L.Ed.2d 518 (2002) (father must "affirmatively demonstrate a commitment" to paren......
  • Sioux Biochemical, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 11 Abril 2005
    ...on the representation [and] (10) that the plaintiff suffered damages (11) attributable to the misrepresentation.'" Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 367 (Minn.2002) (quoting M.H. v. Caritas Family Servs., 488 N.W.2d 282, 289 (Minn.1992)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1046, 123 S.Ct. 621, 154 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Florida's putative father registry: more work is needed to follow the established national trends toward stable adoption placements.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 82 No. 1, January 2008
    • 1 Enero 2008
    ...(birth mother's misrepresentation as to birth father's identity did not provide an excuse for failing to register); Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W 2d 355 (Minn. 2002) (Minnesota Supreme Court held that a birth father that was one day late in registering was cut off from his paternity and cus......
  • Putative father registry deadlines and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 60, December 2007
    • 22 Diciembre 2007
    ...248, 250-51 (1983) (citing New York law). (11) See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3107.064 (2007). (12) See, e.g., Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 377 (Minn. 2002). (13) As of June 18, 2007. (14) See, e.g.. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3107.07(b) (2007). (15) See. e.g.. In re Adoption of Baby ......
  • Safe Haven, Adoption and Birth Record Laws: Where are the Daddies?
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 36-2, December 2007
    • 1 Diciembre 2007
    ...is the 1989 Florida Supreme Court case, In re Adoption of Doe.78The facts 70Beck, supra note 67, at 1037 (2002). 71Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2002). 72Id. at 361. 73Id. 74Id. at 367. 75Id. at 362. 76Id. at 367. 77Id. at 368 (no duty to genetic father “whom she knows is atte......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT