Cited by

26, 2017); d 152, 163 (Minn. App. 2024) (noting that a parent’s custodial rights “must be balanced against the state’s interest in ensuring child welfare”); (“[S]tates may intrude on parental rights in order to protect the ‘general interest in the youth’s well-being.’” (quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944))); -64 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding the best interests of a child is a compelling st

her’s execution of a DOPA “indicate[d] her intent to continue to be actively involved in her child’s life”; and allowing appellants to become de facto custodians of a child living with them pursuant to a DOPA would violate mother’s constitutionally protected right to the care, custody, and control of their child, as discussed in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), 4 While the circumstances surrounding mother’s placement 4 The district court also appears to have misapplied Troxel and SooHoo

Troxel v. 8 Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000)

(holding that Minnesota Statutes section 260C.301, subdivision 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, is narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest in protecting children and therefore survives strict scrutiny); -24 (Minn. 2007) (holding that Minnesota Statutes section 257C.08, subdivision 4 (2006), which allowed district courts to gr

“The district court enjoys broad discretion in determining visitation.”

See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)

ognized that the Due Process Clause “includes a substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” including “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality opinion) (quotation omitted) ().

(“A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”).

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality opinion) (describing “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children” as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the United States Supreme Court]”); (“A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”); Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc.

Both the United States Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court have recognized that a st ate may interfere with the fundamental right of a parent if it is necessary to protect a child’s “well - being.” (quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)).

“[I]n order to afford due deference to the fit custodial parent, the burden of proof must be on the party seeking visitation, and the standard of proof must be clear and convincing evidence.” (considering parent’s former domestic partner’s petition for visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08).

(citing Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65).

“ A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.” see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd.

-24 (Minn. 2007) (considering visitation with a third party the child has resided with for more than two years pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd.

(stating “[a] parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her 14 children is a protected fundamental right”).

d 815, 820 (Minn. 2007) (citing Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65).

See Werlich v. Schnell , -65 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that appellant alleged justiciable claim that predatory- offender registration requirement violated constitutional right to parent) (d 815, 820 (Minn. 2007)).

-24 (Minn. 2007) (considering visitation with a third party the child has resided with for more than two years pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd.

See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (holding a parent has a protected fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his children); (applying this principle); see also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267–68 (1970) (holding an opportunity to present evidence is a protected procedural due-process right); Humenansky v. Minn. Bd.

3 DECISION “A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of [the parent’s] children is a protected fundamental right.” (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)).

“A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute requires a showing that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute ] would be valid.” SooHoo v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000)

SooHoo v. Johnson , -25 (Minn. 2007).

The Supreme Court has stated that “there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2061 (2000); (citing Troxel, and making the same point).

See SooHoo v. Johnson , (“A parent’s right to make de cisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”).

6 While Freitas is indeed correct that the right of a parent to make decisions for their child in the face of government interference is a fundamental right protected by the federal and Minnesota constitutions, see Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-400, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626-27 (1923); we do not address the merits of her argument for two reasons.

See SooHoo v. Johnson , d 815, 821 (Minn. 2007).

See SooHoo v. Johnson , (Anderson, J., concurring) (“Given the importance of holiday events to parent-child relationships, alternating holiday arrangements are particularly problematic in visitation awards under the third -party 16 visitation statute.”).

“When reviewing visitation determinations for an abuse of discretion, we must determine whether the court made findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applied the law.” SooHoo v. Johnson

We consider whether the district court “made findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applied the law.”

Soohoo v. Johnson , , 821 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Ness , , 181 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Soohoo v. Johnson , , 821 (Minn. 2007) ).