Cited by

We review findings of fact for clear error and will not reverse the district court unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted), aff’d

The party invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel bears the burden of proving that (1) “promises or inducements were 29 made”; (2) she “reasonably relied upon the promises”; and (3) she “will be harmed if estoppel is not applied.”

–73 (Minn. 2002) (rejecting a right to parent claim where the putative fath er did not have a “ ‘significant custodial, personal or financial relationship’ ” with his child (quoting Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 262 (1983))).

See Heidbreder v. Carton , , 372 (Minn. 2002).

See Heidbreder v. Carton , (stating that a biological connection “does not confer due process pr otection on [a] putative father’s parental interests”).

disclosure would be necessary to clari fy information already disclosed.” see also L & H Airco, Inc. , d at 380.

1 (2016); (describing notice requirements under the Minnesota Adoption Act).

(citing Minn. Stat. § 259.52, subd.

n.16 (Minn. 2002) (“[R]egistration with another state’s registry does not entitle a putative father to notice under Minn. Stat. §§ 259.49 or 259.52 [2000].”).

-65 (Minn. 2002) (highlighting concern about a father who was not legally recognized before the filing of an adoption proceeding unilaterally interfering with an adoption that the mother initiated, and discussing legislative changes to avoid that problem).

“A duty to disclose may exist when a fiduciary relationship exists between the 8 parties or when disclosure would be necessary to clarify information already disclosed.”

“The doctrine of unclean hands bars a party who acted inequitably from obtaining equitable relief.” (quotation omitted); (“[A] party may be denied relief where [the party’s] conduct has been unconscionable by reason of a bad motive, or where the result induced by [the party’s] conduct will be unconscionable either in the benefit to [the party] or t

See Ortiz, d at 121 (determining that the statute of limitations was jurisdictional because “[a] wrongful death claim is purely statutory, as common law recognized no such actions on the theory that a claim for personal injuries died with the victim”); 370 (Minn.2002) (finding that because Minnesota did not historically recognize a putative father’s parental rights, a provision in Minnesota’s adoption statutes that established a registration deadline of 30 days after birth for putative fathers w

See Adams v. Comm’n on Judicial Performance, 10 Cal.4th 866 , 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 606 , 897 P.2d 544, 568 (1995) (disciplining a judge for making false statements and material omissions during a judicial disciplinary investigation); (“A misrepresentation may be made by an affirmative statement that is itself false or by concealing or not disclosing certain facts that render facts disclosed misleading.”).

() (quotation marks omitted).

But a parent is not precluded from “revoking a voluntary consent to termination for any reason before the court has accepted the consent and ordered termination.” superseded by statute on other grounds, -66 (Minn.2002).

See, e.g., Frazier, d at 839 (rejecting equal-protection challenge to different penalties for violation of RICO statute and the crime-committed-for-a-gang statute because people who violate each statute are not similarly situated); -77 (Minn.2002) (rejecting equal-protection challenge to adoption statutes that treated birth mothers differently than putative fathers because putative father was not similarly situated to a birth mother with respect to their relationship with the child); Mitchell, d

“A misrepresentation may be made by an affirmative statement that is itself false or by concealing or not disclosing certain facts that render facts disclosed misleading.”