In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., Parents, 2014 Minn. LEXIS 453

A CHIPS petition was filed for four children of J.W. and R.D.L. alleging unsafe conditions; the court placed them in foster care.
The County sought involuntary termination of parental rights for the four older children based on failure to comply with case plans.
A fifth child, the newborn, was subsequently placed in protective care and a petition to terminate rights was filed, invoking Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (the palpable unfitness presumption).
The presumption provides that a parent is palpably unfit to parent a current child if that parent's rights to other children were involuntarily terminated.
The juvenile court terminated the four older children’s rights and later relied on the presumption to seek termination for the newborn; the court also found, independently, that termination was in the child’s best interests.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the presumption is narrowly tailored and does not violate equal protection, applying strict scrutiny and affirming the termination order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §260C.301.1(b)(4) violate equal protection?	R.D.L. argues the presumption is unconstitutional because it applies only to involuntarily terminated parents, not voluntary terminations.	The County contends the two groups are not similarly situated and the presumption furthers a compelling interest.	No; the presumption survives strict scrutiny and the groups are similarly situated for the child-protection context.
What level of scrutiny applies and is the presumption narrowly tailored?	Emphasizes that the presumption is not narrowly tailored and improperly burdens parents who voluntarily terminate.	Argues that the presumption is narrowly tailored due to court discretion, rebuttal possibility, and focus on child welfare.	Strict scrutiny applies; the presumption is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in protecting children.
Is the presumption properly rebuttable and does the burden-shifting respect due process?	The presumption should require stronger evidence to overcome; otherwise it improperly forecloses individual consideration.	Burden shifts to show parent is not palpably unfit; rebuttal standard is appropriate and not overly burdensome.	Yes; the presumption is rebuttable with a lower-than-clear-and-convincing standard, and individual best-interests review remains required.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (recognizes fundamental parental rights in child custody cases)
Greene v. Commissioner of the Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., 755 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2008) (strict scrutiny for fundamental rights and classifications of suspect nature)
In re Welfare of Clausen, 289 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1980) (presumption framework and fit to be entrusted with care of child)
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1942) (strict scrutiny standard and narrowly tailored inquiry)