In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L.

• Decision Date: 10 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. A13–1820.,A13–1820.
• Citation: 853 N.W.2d 127
• Parties: In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., Parents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

853 N.W.2d 127

In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., Parents.

No. A13–1820.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Sept. 10, 2014.

William Ward, Chief Hennepin County Public Defender, James A. Kamin, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Cory A. Carlson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

Bruce Jones, Lariss Jude, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN; and Shirley Reider, Saint Paul, MN, for Guardian Ad Litem.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2012), which provides that parents who previously have had their parental rights to children involuntarily terminated are presumed to be palpably unfit to parent other children, violates the equal protection provisions of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The juvenile court and the court of appeals found that the statute does not violate either constitutional provision. Because we conclude that the presumption is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, we affirm.

On September 15, 2011, respondent Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department filed a Petition for Children in Need of Protection or Services (“CHIPS”) on behalf of four children of parents J.W. (father) and appellant R.D.L. (mother). The petition alleged, among other things, that the mother was engaging in prostitution out of a Brooklyn Center hotel in the children's presence, that the father had physically abused the mother in front of their children, and that the mother used illegal drugs in front of the children. The juvenile court found that the children were in need of protection and services and issued an order placing them in foster care.

Eight months later, on May 3, 2012, the County filed a petition to terminate the parents' rights to the four children, alleging that the parents failed to comply with the case plans designed to reunite them with their children. See Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5) (2012) (a petition to terminate parental rights may allege, for a child in foster care, that “reasonable efforts ... have failed to correct the conditions leading to” that placement); see also Minn.Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 1 (2012) (requiring an out-of-home case plan for a child placed in foster care that provides for reunification). The case plans required that the parents follow recommendations made after chemical dependency, mental health, and parenting assessments; provide random urine tests to demonstrate sobriety; and obtain safe, stable, and suitable housing. The mother's case plan required her to cut off contact with the father, and the father's case plan required that he seek anger management treatment. The mother took advantage of some of the services the County offered, but ultimately did not complete any components of her case plan. The father also did not comply with the case plan, and he refused to accept any of the services.

A few weeks after the County filed its petition to terminate the parents' rights to the four children, the mother gave birth to a fifth child, who is the subject of this action. On July 27, 2012, less than a week before trial began on the County's petition to terminate parental rights to the four older children, the County made an offer to the mother concerning her fifth child. The County proposed to agree “on the record” that if the mother would seek to voluntarily terminate her rights to the four older children, the County would not use that termination as a basis to seek termination of parental rights to her newborn child, “absent a separate reason for child protection involvement.” The mother rejected the County's offer.

After a two-day trial, the juvenile court terminated the parents' rights to the four older children.¹ Minnesota Statutes § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) (2012), provides that parental rights can be involuntary terminated if the court finds that at least one of nine conditions exist. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts had failed to correct conditions leading to the children's out-of-home placement, under Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5), and terminated the parents' rights. The mother appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the termination.² In re Welfare of Children of R.D.L., No. A12–1758, 2013 WL 869950 (Minn.App. Mar. 11, 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2013).

Two days after the juvenile court's decision, the County filed a CHIPS petition on behalf of the fifth child, the newborn. After the County located and placed the baby into protective care, the County filed a petition to terminate the parents' rights to the newborn, alleging that four of the statutory grounds for termination existed, including, as relevant here, that the mother was “palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship.” Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4). A parent is presumed to be “palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship” if “the parent's parental rights to one or more other children were involuntarily terminated.” Id.³

At a subsequent hearing, the father offered some, “albeit scant,” evidence in an effort to overcome the presumption. The mother offered no evidence to rebut the presumption. Instead, she argued that the statutory presumption, Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), is unconstitutional. The mother argued that the presumption of unfitness violates due process and equal protection under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions because the presumption applies only to parents whose parental rights are terminated involuntarily, and excludes those parents who voluntarily agree to terminate their parental rights.

The juvenile court rejected the mother's constitutional challenge and found that the father failed to overcome the presumption. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents failed to overcome the presumption of unfitness and that it was in the child's best interests to terminate their parental rights. The court of appeals affirmed. In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., No. A13–1820, 2014 WL 1272408, at *3 (Minn.App. Mar. 31, 2014).

The mother filed a petition for review with our court, arguing that the presumption of palpable unfitness found in Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the Minnesota Constitution. We granted review.⁴ On July 15, 2014, we issued an order affirming the court of appeals with this opinion to follow.

I.

The question presented in this case is whether the statutory presumption in Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), violates equal protection guarantees in the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The equal protection provision of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. Although the text of the provisions is different, claims made under them are analyzed using the same principles. Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n, 615 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn.2000). Both guarantees begin with the mandate that all similarly situated individuals must be treated alike. Schuette v. City of Hutchinson, 843 N.W.2d 233, 239 (Minn.2014). Whether a statute violates the Constitution is a question that we review de novo.⁵ Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., 846 N.W.2d 424, 428 (Minn.2014).

A.

The court of appeals determined that the mother could not make a successful equal protection claim because “parents who voluntarily terminate their parental rights are not situated similarly to those who have their rights terminated involuntarily.” In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., No. A13–1820, 2014 WL 1272408, at *2 (Minn.App. Mar. 31, 2014) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court found that the two sets of parents are not similarly situated because a parent who has had parental rights involuntarily terminated has been “ ‘adjudicated as failing to adequately provide for the child's health and safety,’ ” while a parent who has voluntarily terminated rights “ ‘has not been so adjudicated.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Child of P.T., 657 N.W.2d 577, 589 (Minn.App.2003), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 15, 2003)). The mother argues that the court of appeals erred because “[i]t is simply not correct to say that any articulable difference between the two groups renders them ‘not similarly situated’ for equal protection purposes.” Rather, she says, the differences between the two classes “must be relevant to the state interest being asserted.” The County and the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), on the other hand, argue that the two groups of parents are not similarly situated, and therefore, the mother's claim fails before it can even get over this “threshold” question.

We have required that a party establish that he or she is similarly situated to persons who have been treated differently in order to support an equal protection claim. See, e.g., State v. Cox, 798 N.W.2d 517, 521 (Minn.2011). We have explained that “the Equal Protection Clause does not require the state to treat things that are different in fact or opinion as though they were the same in law.” Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to determine whether two groups are similarly situated, we focus on whether the groups are alike in all relevant respects. Id. at 522.

As discussed below, we subject the statutory presumption in Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), to strict scrutiny, rather than rational basis, review. Supreme...