Cited by

If a fundamental right is at issue, courts apply a strict - scrutiny standard, under which a law “must advance a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest.” SooHoo v. Johnson

SooHoo v. Johnson , , 821 (Minn. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

See SooHoo v. Johnson , , 820 (Minn. 2007) ("A parent's right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right."); In re C.D.G.D.

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

“The constitutionality of a statute is a questio n of law that we review de novo.” (M inn.

530 U.S. 57, 68-70, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2061-62 (2000) (upholding a mother’s fundamental right to determine the care, custody, and co ntrol of her children without governmental interference, where mother was a fit parent, and presumption of her parental fitness had not been overcome) ; see SooHoo v. Johnson , -22 (Minn. 2007) (recognizing that the Troxel decision is a plurality opinion and adopting much of its analysis).

" SooHoo v. Johnson , , 821 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Ohio v. Akron Ctr.

(citing SooHoo v. Johnson , ).

“The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”

An appellate court considers whether the district court “made findings unsu pported by the evidence or improperly applied the law.”

(citing Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060 (2000) (plurality opinion)).

maintain a relationship with a grandc hild independent of the wishes of the child’s parents”)); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66–68, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060–61 (2000) (plurality) (holding that grandparent visitation must satisfy the due process 7 protection in the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children); (“[A] parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and cont rol of his or her children is a protected fund

“A finding is clearly erroneous if we are left with the definite and firm convict ion that the [district] court made a mistake.” SooHoo v. Johnson

“A finding is clearly erroneous if we are left with the definite and firm 11 conviction that the [district] court made a mistake.”

“A finding is clearly 5 erroneous if [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that the [district] court made a mistake.”

“A finding is clearly erroneous if [an appellate court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that the [district] court made a mistake.”

See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060 (2000)

The power of a parent may be subject to limitation if it appears that “parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233-34, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542 (1972); (holding that the state “may intrude on parental rights in order to protect the general interest in the youth’s well being”) (quotation omitted)).

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