In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O Minors for a Change of Name
2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 25
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (J.M.M.) filed name-change petitions to change surnames of her three minor children to her surname; children bear the biological father's surname.
- Biological father is not listed on birth certificates; paternity was never adjudicated; he has not supported or seen the children for years and has a history of threats toward mother.
- County self-help staff told mother she was not required to notify the biological father if paternity was not established; mother left the non-applicant-parent field blank and later told the court she knew the father's identity but not his whereabouts.
- District court dismissed the petitions without prejudice for failure to provide 30-day notice to the biological father, interpreting Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1 to require notice to both biological parents.
- Mother appealed, arguing the statute requires notice only to legal parents; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1 requires notice to a child's biological parent who lacks a legally recognized parent-child relationship | J.M.M.: “Parent” means legal parent — notice only required to parents with legal status under Parentage Act | District court: “Both parents” means both biological parents; notice required to biological father regardless of legal status | Court: Statute ambiguous; interpret “parent” by reference to Parentage Act — notice required only if parent-child relationship exists under Minn. Stat. § 257.54 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (discusses parental rights of biological/putative fathers and due-process interests)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental interest and due-process analysis)
- Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2002) (parental notice and putative father rights in adoption context)
- Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2016) (statutory interpretation when dictionary definitions conflict)