SooHoo v. Johnson (In re SooHoo) - 731 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2007)

Rule:

Three guiding principles necessary for a third-party visitation statute to survive a constitutional challenge: (1) the statute must give some special weight to the fit custodial parent's decision regarding visitation; (2) there can be no presumption in favor of awarding visitation; and (3) the court must assert more than a mere best-interest analysis in support of its decision to override the fit parent's wishes. These guiding principles ensure that third-party visitation statutes are narrowly tailored to the governmental interest in protecting the general welfare of children.

Facts:

Appellant Marilyn Johnson and respondent Nancy SooHoo, who lived together and jointly owned a house in Minneapolis, ended a 22-year relationship in the fall of 2003. During the course of that relationship, Johnson adopted two children from China. SooHoo did not adopt either of the children, but the record indicated that Johnson and SooHoo co-parented the children, recognized themselves as a family unit with two mothers, and represented themselves to others as such. SooHoo filed a petition seeking sole physical and legal custody of the children. In the alternative, she sought visitation. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006), the district court granted visitation of the two children to respondent SooHoo. Johnson appealed, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006), was unconstitutional on its face and as applied. 

Issue:

Was Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006) unconstitutional on its face and as applied? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006), was facially constitutional because it limited the class of individuals eligible for third-party visitation, prohibited visitation that was not in the children's best interests or interfered with the custodial parent's relationship with them, and was narrowly drawn to the State's compelling interest in protecting the children's welfare by preserving the relationships of recognized family units. The court further held that the statute was constitutional as applied because visitation was awarded only after the district court found that the third party had lived with the children for over two years, was in loco parentis with them, and that she and the children had a parent-child relationship. Visitation was in the children's best interest, and it did not interfere with the custodial parent's relationship with them. Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 7 (2006), which placed the burden on the custodial parent to prove that visitation would interfere with her fundamental rights, was stricken.