Heidbreder v. Carton

HEIDBREDER, Dale “J.R.”

Petitioner, Appellant,

v. CARTON, Jean

Kathleen a/k/a Carton, Kate

Katie a/k/a

Carton, Respondent, al., Respondents.

et

No. C0-01-739.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June

suit barred under was (2000), Heidbreder was adoption peti- not entitled notice (2000) tion under Minn.Stat. 259.49 he failed with the Fathers’ Adoption Registry within 30 KM.C.’s birth. The district court treated summary judg- the motion as a motion for ment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. The granted respondents district court sum- mary judgment appeals and the court of affirmed. We also affirm. Olson, Office, Mark A. Olson Law 1999, Carton, In November Heidbre-

Burnsville, appellant. time, girlfriend der’s at the informed him Adkins, Noonan, al., Jill Alise Rinke et pregnant August that she and due Cloud, Carton, respondent. St. time, 2000. At the lived in Fort both Madison, years Iowa. Carton was 18 old Wright Walling, Walling Berg, S. & graduated high and had from school in M.B.P., P.A., Minneapolis, for M.J.P. spring of 1999. Heidbreder was a respondents. Heidbreder, year According older. Speeter Cheryl Margóles, Speeter, and Carton had one discussion about Johnson, Wurst, Hamilton & Minneapolis, adoption early in pregnancy. Carton’s Arvold, Laura Susan Home Children’s So- expressed explor- some interest Minnesota, Paul, ciety of St. for amicus ing adoption but Heidbreder told her he Society. curiae Children’s Home “absolutely against” adoption was and that Afton, Amy Silberberg, M. for amicus right.” he believed “not He- was curiae for Lutheran Social Service. in deposition idbreder testified his that him Carton told she would “never ever” put up adoption. his child for While re- spondents dispute whether Carton made promise an affirmative to Heidbreder not OPINION put up adoption, the child for we view ANDERSON, A. in light RUSSELL Justice. the facts most favorable to party Heidbreder as the nonmoving Heidbreder, Appellant Dale “J.R.” an assume, summary judgment stage and for resident, registered Iowa with the Minne- decision, purposes of our that Carton did Adoption Registry sota Fathers’ promise in fact make such a to Heidbre- girlfriend after his former Katie Carton during adoption. der their discussion of gave girl, register- birth to K.M.C. After ing, paternity spring Heidbreder commenced a In the Carton moved out in County action Stearns District Court in of her mother’s house and went to Car- Illinois, an attempt pending adoption thage, approximately to block the for 2 weeks. in prospective of K.M.C. Minnesota. The She then moved back to her mother’s respondents In adoptive parents, M.J.P. and house. June Carton Heid- M.B.P., intervened and an apartment together moved dismiss breder rented paternity paid security action under Minn. R. Civ. P. Fort Madison. Carton grounds 12.03 on the deposit Heidbreder’s and the rent for the month of to Illinois and he never ton had returned occasionally paid for Heidbreder June. was possibility Carton considered Carton, provided never but he for meals re- poor of Carton’s Minnesota because pregnancy- to Carton financial mother. lationship with her expenses. related Heidbreder, According to after Carton were liv- and Heidbreder Carton While attorney an Iowa to left he met with that her learned together, Carton ing support. Heid- visitation and child discuss moving to Minnesota. Car- mother not discuss his testified he did breder her mother was relationship with ton’s put up child in the Carton event and be- pregnancy of the because strained he did not believe because Heidbre- mother believed cause Carton’s However, he also would do that. Carton told well. Carton not treat Carton der did him that attorney that the told his testified not move Minne- she would adopted in Iowa without child could not be However, Heidbre- with her mother. sota attorney consent. The and Heidbreder his living relatives had other der knew Carton hiring private detective considered in Minnesota. Carton, so, and other find but never did argued during and Heidbreder Carton friends, family and talking than to Carton’s mid-June, they together. the time lived any steps to lo- did not take to leave Heidbreder. Car- decided Carton did Heidbreder take cate Carton. Nor that she left deposition in her ton testified action, paternity any steps to commence getting they were not Heidbreder because Declaration of with the Iowa did testified along. Heidbreder Paternity Registry under Iowa Code that at the why left but know Carton (2001), or to learn whether the § 144.12A left, con- “scared and she Carton was time Heidbreder be- laws of Illinois—where fused.” him to do required lieved Carton was— Cloud, Minnesota, moved to St. parental rights.1 anything preserve for a few grandparents with her and lived explained deposition Begin- then moved to New days. She talk- take action after that he did not teenage girls pregnant a home for nings, attorney he and the ing to the * * * moved to Carton’s mother St. Cloud. “figured attorney [Carton] early July. in late June or Minnesota papers.” [Heidbreder] send maintained contact with Beginnings, Carton Carton living While at New While e-mail, not tell through up adoption. she did for give Heidbreder her child decided Society her and she instructed Home Through him where she was the Children’s (CHS), couple she give not to Heidbreder selected the family and friends Carton K.M.C., respondents Al- adopt location. about her wanted to any information information, During meeting a with and M.B.P. asked for M.J.P. though Heidbreder CHS, ex- representative from Carton friends refused to tell a family and Carton’s that Heidbreder pressed testi- concern was. Heidbreder him where Carton representative ex- adoption. the The stop Car- deposition that he believed fied Minnesota, 1999). (West As in regarding putative fa- law when 1. Minnesota adoption notice of an adop- father not entitled to pending are entitled to notice of thers right claim to a to make a register petition has no they required to and when are tion subject petition for registry child who is is almost with the state's registered with he adoption in Illinois unless 750 Ill. law of Illinois. See identical to the (consent), Registry (notice), Father before the Illinois Putative Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/8 50/7 days 30 old. See id. (Illinois Registry) child more than Putative Father 50/12.1 plained Respondents that under Minnesota to Carton moved to dismiss Heidbre- law, required to name paternity grounds she was not Heid- der’s action on the that 259.52, 8, and that if § on the birth certificate breder MinmStat. subd. barred Heid- certificate, on the birth he was not named asserting parental rights breder from prevent could not Heidbreder K.M.C. because he failed to with registered unless he with Minnesota Adoption Registry the Minnesota Fathers’ Adoption Registry no later than Fathers’ days before K.M.C. was more than 30 old days after the of the child. birth and he was not otherwise entitled to notice adoption petition of an under MinmStat. K.M.C., gave girl, birth to a on Carton (2000). 1(b) 259.49, § subd. 12, identify not August 2000. Carton did argued timely that his failure to file should father on K.M.C.’s birth certificate and the be excused because engaged Carton space identifying for K.M.C.’s father was by failing fraud to disclose her location. hospital left blank. K.M.C. left the He challenged constitutionality also 14, 2000, respondents August on and re- §§ MinmStat. 259.49 and 259.52. spondents petition adopt filed a K.M.C. Washington County District Court. respondents’ The district court treated summary motion to dismiss as a motion for 2000, 12, September days On after See judgment under Minn. R. P. 56. birth, Civ. KM.C.’s Heidbreder learned from a Minn. R. Civ. P. Minnesota, (allowing 12.03 district party that third Carton was court to treat motion to dismiss as motion given girl put had birth to a and had summary judgment if adoption. matters outside up for Heidbreder contacted pleadings presented). are by That The district night, e-mail. Carton told granted respondents summary court telephone judg- Heidbreder over the she ment. given put up had birth and had the child adoption. She also told him it was too The district court held him to stop adoption. late for proceed paternity could not with his action day, same found a website because was not entitled to notice of an

with information on the Minnesota Fa- adoption proceeding under cri- Adoption Registry completed thers’ § teria listed in Minn.Stat. subd. necessary and mailed the forms. The 1(b), and he timely register failed to postmarked September forms were Adoption Registry Minnesota Fathers’ after K.M.C.’sbirth. under MinmStat. 259.52. It concluded paternity Heidbreder then commenced a timely register Heidbreder’s failure to County action Stearns District Court excused under MinmStat. seeking paternity adjudication and custo- because Heidbreder had dy of K.M.C. Carton counterclaimed for convincing demonstrated clear and custody in attempt the event Heidbreder’s possible” evidence that it was “not for him to block the of register K.M.C. was suc- before K.M.C. was more than stipulation cessful. Pursuant to a 30 timely between old or that his failure Heidbreder, Carton, respondents, register and “through was no fault of his own.” respondents district court allowed possible to inter- The court concluded that it was respondents’ adoption pe- vene. Action on timely for Heidbreder in register stayed pending tition was resolution of He- Minnesota because he knew Carton was 2000, paternity August idbreder’s action. K.M.C. has due in hiding knew she was him, in respondents’ throughout remained care from and knew that there were a proceedings. places these limited of number where she could

363 father, I. in Illinois in Iowa with be: 2000, or in spring in of lived where she Summary judgment appropri and other her mother evidence, where light Minnesota viewed ate when the party, court concluded family nonmoving lived. The to the most favorable steps to genuine not take there is no issue Heidbreder did shows because moving party is enti material fact and the any of the states protect his matter of law. Fun- judgment tled to as a been, have there was could where Carton Corp., 632 chess v. Cecil Newman N.W.2d that it convincing and evidence not clear (Minn.2001). 666, appeal from 672 On to time- possible” “not for Heidbreder was summary judgment, the court determines that his failure to ly register or any material issues of whether there are his “through no fault of own.” dispute fact and whether lower had found that Carton The court also application in their of the law. Id. courts erred deprived fraud that engaged not timely opportunity Heidbreder of had and that Carton

register in Minnesota states, Historically, including most to him. her location duty no to disclose Minnesota, recognize putative did held that Finally, the court Minn.Stat. rights to a child and did parental father’s2 not violate due §§ 259.49 and 259.52 did father be require applied to equal protection as process filing petition of a given notice of the the United States Su- Heidbreder under adoption. to an adoption or that he consent in Lehr v. Robert- decision preme Court’s 1(a) (1971); See Minn.Stat. 2985, son, 248, 77 463 U.S. S.Ct. Comment, Emerging Constitutional (1983). L.Ed.2d Father’s Paren- the Putative Protection of appealed and the court L.Rev. 1581-84 Rights, tal Mich. granted review to appeals affirmed. We (1972) concerning (reviewing state laws (1) his claims that address Heidbreder’s parental treatment comply requirements with the failure to rights). §§ and 259.52 is excused 259.49

Minn.Stat. Supreme the United States (2) Carton; by he should be due to fraud that a recognized Court paternity action permitted pursue relationship with with an established substantially complied with “com liberty interest children has (3) 259.52; the deadline for care, custody, manage panionship, * * * Fathers’ with the Minnesota registration and that this of his children” ment limita- is a statute of Adoption Registry absent protection warrants interest fraudulent tions that is tolled Carton’s Stan countervailing interest.” “powerful (4) location; equitable of her concealment 645, 651, Illinois, 405 92 S.Ct. ley v. U.S. and Carton estoppel respondents (1972). bars The court 31 L.Ed.2d reg- of his challenging the timeliness from that had the an Illinois statute invalidated (5) istration; §§ and Minn.Stat. 259.49 all fathers presuming effect of rejected Illinois’ asser parent violate due unfit to applied 259.52 as to Heidbreder “most unmarried fathers tion that because protection. process equal paternity in a court may established be and has not "putative is a man who 2. A father” 259.21, § subd. 12 proceeding. Minn.Stat. but who was not married the child's father before the date of birth the birth mother on or (2000). 364 neglectful parents,” peals it putative

are unsuitable held that a father’s substan- putative all fathers unfit. Id. compliance could deem tial filing require- with the 654, 1208. The court held that 92 S.Ct. putative a ments entitled father to notice jus convenience did not Illinois’ interest in of an adoption though even his affidavit hearing father a on tify denying putative a untimely was filed with the Division of 656-57, his fitness. Id. at 92 S.Ct. 1208. A.M.P., In Vital Statistics. re Welfare of 616, 507 (Minn.App.1993). N.W.2d 621 Following Stanley, Legis the Minnesota only While A.M.P. was the in case which adoption lature amended the laws rec appeals the court of found that a putative ognize rights putative the of a father. Act timely father who faded to file an 21, 1974, 66, 1-10, affidavit §§ ch. 1974 Feb. 89-94; substantially complied had 89, with the re- see also In re Minn. Laws Wel notice, Larson, 210, 3, quirements adoptive parents 312 Minn. 215 n. 251 fare of (1977) 325, (noting putative n. 3 that could never be certain that a fa- N.W.2d 329 adoption appear legislature pro amended laws to ther'would after the time for filing an putative response expired successfully tect father’s affidavit Stanley). legislature provided challenge The that validity adoption the of the on putative the father was entitled to notice of grounds substantially complied he (1) an if adoption proceeding was 90/60-day rule. certificate, parent named as a on the birth addition, the fact that a putative fa- (2) (3) child, substantially supported the ther failed to file an affidavit did not bar a mother was married to birth within putative seeking father from to establish days 325 before the child’s birth or within an interest in the commencing child (4) birth, days openly living 10 after was paternity adoption action before the was person designated with the child or the as J.A.V., Paternity final. In In re certificate, the birth mother on the birth 374, (Minn.1996), N.W.2d 376-79 we held (5) adjudicated parent, had been child’s legislature specifi- did not (6) stating or had filed an affidavit cally provide that timely the failure to file parental rights intention to retain within an affidavit a putative barred father from days of the child’s birth within 60 commencing an paterni- action to establish placement prospective with the ty, timely who failed to sooner, adoptive parents, was whichever file an pursue parental affidavit could Department

with the of Health’s Division rights through paternity action. As a (the rule”). “90/60-day of Vital Statistics result, a putative father could thwart 1, 259.261, §§ Minn.Stat. subd. pending adoption after the deadline for (1974).3 legislature pro also subd. filing an paternity expired by affidavit of vided father’s consent to commencing a paternity action. rec-We if required ognized in J.A.V. our decision could to notice. father was entitled Minn.Stat. delays lead to “inordinate expense” (1974). adoption proceedings, but concluded it was protected While the 1974 amendments legislature, court, for the not the to ad- rights, they also had the dress this issue. Id. at 379. jeopardizing adverse effect of the state’s JAW., permanence stability Following leg- interest our decision adoptions. example, ap- For the court of islature amended the laws to limit 10, 1994, May 3. These two statutes were later recodified at ch. 1994 Minn. (1994). §§ 295.49 and 259.51 Act Laws

365 putative regis- that the father requires that is to a child but rights father’s putative a the days later than 30 after birth ter no petition. adoption subject pending of a the any to retain interest the child order 7-9, 1997, 218, §§ 1997 ch. May Act of subject pending the of a a child who is 2200, 2202-10. Laws Minn. 259.52, § petition. Minn.Stat. adoption require to continued legislature The (2000).4 putative If a father is subds. adop- to the father’s consent putative the petition for to notice of a not entitled is putative if father the tion be obtained 259.49, § subd. adoption under Minn.Stat. adoption. Minn. notice of the entitled to the Minneso- register and does not with (2000). 259.24, It also con- § subd. Stat. the Adoption Registry ta Fathers’ before adop- the that notice of require tinued old, putative the days child is more than 30 is father who any putative given tion be father: certificate, has sub- the birth named on (1) bringing or is barred thereafter from child, has married the stantially supported any in- maintaining an action to assert mother, with the openly living the birth pending during in the child the terest the natu- designated as person or the child concerning proceeding adoption certificate, child’s birth mother on the ral child; of the adjudicated parent a has been (2) is considered to have waived 1(b) 259.49, § subd. child. Minn.Stat. any right to notice surrendered (2000). However, a limited legislature any judicial proceeding hearing pending to thwart a right father’s putative child, and consent of that adoption of the ac- by commencing paternity a adoption child is not adoption to the of the person puta- that a legislature provided tion. The required; paternity a commences tive father who (3) to have is considered abandoned notice, and therefore action is entitled child. by withholding may block 259.52, § 8. Minn.Stat. subd. consent, paternity his ac- if he commences the circum- legislature The limited the child’s birth after tion “within a under which a court can excuse stances at the time pending” is still and the action timely register. failure to putative father’s petition is filed. Minn.Stat. timely regis- A father’s failure to putative 1(b)(6). The statute does subd. by clear and proves if he ter is excused father com- require that that: convincing evidence action in Minnesota. paternity mence (i) him register possible it was not legislature also eliminated The 90/60- specified of time period within the provision it day replaced rule 7; subdivision if notice father to that entitles (ii) through his failure newly created Minne- registers with the he own; fault of his no under Adoption Registry sota Fathers’ (iii) days after it registered within 10 § 259.52. Minn.Stat. possible for him to file. 1(b)(8). became Id. provides § 259.52 Statutes Minnesota puta- further limited may register legislature any putative father excused from right be Adoption Registry tive Fathers’

the Minnesota conception, upon the possibility of i.e. father of the change gives While this Thus, the intercourse. protect of sexual child to occurrence after the birth of the less time (9 rule, up months has to 10 months 90/60-day parental than register. plus days) to knowledge pregnancy may register upon putative father by providing that ment is without merit. There is no basis requirement registration 259.49, § pregnancy language or in the of knowledge “lack of Minn.Stat. 1(b), for acceptable expanding categories an reason failure for birth is not subd. beyond fathers entitled to notice register.” Id. specifically those fisted.6 III. regis Heidbreder concedes that his The issue this case is whether tration, late, day untimely. filed one was paternity action must be dis Heidbreder’s timely regis argues He that his failure register due to his failure to missed should it ter be excused because was “not Adoption Registry the Minnesota Fathers’ timely him possible” register more than 30 old. before K.M.C. was timely register that his failure to was Heidbreder is barred under Minn.Stat. “through fault no of his own” under Minn. 259.52, maintaining § subd. from 8(i)-(iii). 259.52, § Stat. subd. He asserts (1) paternity action unless he was entitled possible” regis that it “not for him to was to notice of the under Minn.Stat. ter Minnesota because Carton concealed (2) 259.49, timely registered § subd. location and he did not know she was Adoption

with the Minnesota Fathers’ in Minnesota. (3) Registry, timely regis or his failure to 259.52, § ter is excused under Minn.Stat. legislature specifically provid subd. 8. knowledge pregnancy ed that lack of or not Heidbreder admits he does birth would not excuse a any timely register. meet of the criteria for notice of the failure to 259.52, § apparent under Minn.Stat. subd. subd. 8. It is from this 1(b).5 however, argues, statutory language legislature He that he should that the in not untimely registra be “deemed” entitled to notice because he tended to excuse an named on tion would have been the birth certif based on concealment of the fact of pregnancy by icate but for “fraudulent collusion” Car or birth the birth mother if possi ton and CHS because he would have even the concealment made it “not timely paternity timely regis commenced action had ble” father to argu- timely her location. This ter and his Carton revealed failure appeals 5. The court of held that conduct. Heidbreder The record indicates that CHS did nothing was not entitled to notice under Minn.Stat. more than tell Carton she was not 1(b)(4), requires legally which notice required identify a father on the person openly living to a who "is with the birth certificate but that if she named a father person designated child or the on the birth adoption. he would be entitled to notice of the certificate as the natural mother of the child merely CHS informed Carton of the law in both,” provision requires or because this no- Minnesota and allowed her to make her own only tice to a father who lived or is decision about whether name child, mother, living with the birth or both on the birth certificate. after the birth of the child. Heidbreder v. addition, Carton’s failure to disclose her Carton, (Minn.App. 636 N.W.2d prevent location did not from court, 2001). appeal On to this timely commencing paternity action be- argument has abandoned his that he was enti- cause Heidbreder knew at the time left openly tled to notice because he lived with pregnant, that she was and he does assert during preg- Carton for a few weeks Carton's paternity that he could not have filed a action nancy. in Iowa or in Illinois—where he believed Car- protect 6. We also note that there is no evidence indi- ton was—to his interests in K.M.C. cating engaged knowing that CHS without fraudulent Carton's location. disclosing certain facts that ing It follows of his own.” “through no fault Id. misleading. disclosed render facts birth mother by the that concealment birth, pregnancy or to the facts related statements that she would Carton’s during pregnancy or location such as her adoption choose and would “never ever” birth, also not excuse time of at the Minnesota with her mother not move to timely regis- to father’s failure putative satisfy at three elements of fail to least require- met the if he otherwise ter even First, fu fraud. the statements concern 8(i)- § of Minn.Stat. ments adoption moving to Minne ture facts— (iii). Therefore, that con- the fact Carton Second, facts. past present sota—not or does from Heidbreder cealed her location evidence that at the time Car there is no timely register to his failure they not excuse she knew ton made these statements (cid:127) Adoption the Minnesota Fathers’ presented Heidbreder has no were false. put to Registry. evidence that Carton intended in for or that Carton up child con- characterizes Carton’s to when she tended to move Minnesota that this “fraud” and asserts cealment as told him she would not do either of these timely register be- his failure to excuses that she moved to things. Carton testified possi- it “not “fraud” made cause Carton’s “spur on the of the moment” Minnesota made timely register him to for ble” up put and that she decided to child to “no fault of his own” his failure moving after to Minnesota. for subd. 8. under Minn.Stat. the conclusion The record does not question not resolve the need We were that Carton knew her statements by mother excuses whether fraud the birth Final at the time she made them. untrue timely regis- failure to ly, there is no evidence that Carton made He- 259.52 because ter under Minn.Stat. intending prevent these He- statements law, cannot, a matter of estab- idbreder as rights as the exercising from idbreder in fraud. engaged that Carton lish him not to putative father or to induce placed in the event she protect himself fraud, must plaintiff To establish Thus, up adoption. Heidbreder’s child demonstrate: fraud fails as claim that Carton committed (1) repre- made a defendant [T]hat [the] of law. matter (2) (3) having false sentation that was that Heidbreder’s claim (4) past present fact that is do with a or in fraudulent nondisclosure also engaged (5) susceptible of knowl- material a matter of law. Nondisclosure fails as (6) representor knows to edge that the to a fraud claim unless give does not rise knowing asserted without be false or is obligation” to legal equitable there is “a or (7) fact is true or false with whether the particular person to a communicate facts person to induce the other the intent information. entitled to the person and that is (8) in fact induced person act and the is H Airco, Rapistan Corp., L & Inc. v. (9) representa- on the to act reliance (Minn.1989). dutyA 380 N.W.2d (10) plaintiff suffered tion [and] fiduciary may facts exist when to disclose (11) misrep- to the damages attributable parties relationship exists between resentation. necessary to be when disclosure would Servs., Family v. Cantas M.H. Id. already disclosed. clarify information (Minn.1992). misrepre- A N.W.2d not assert Heidbreder does may made an affirmative sentation be clarify prior duty had a by conceal- Carton that is itself false or statement put independent that she would not assert his interest in his child statements adoption and would not move up through registration child of the birth mother Rather, he asks the court to Minnesota. Adoption with the Minnesota Fathers’ Carton, as the mother of his to hold Registry. Because a father child, fiduciary duty him a unborn owed protect able his interest his child disclose her location because her nondis- without assistance or information from him prevented protecting closure from mother, the birth the birth mother is not in K.M.C. as a father. At interest position superior in a to the argument, attorney clar- oral Heidbreder’s required pro- such that she should be fiduciary duty ified when the on the birth him regarding vide with information mother to disclose her location should at- location. fiduciary duty tach. He stated impose fiduciary Because we decline to a solely should not attach based on the oc- duty notify putative on a mother to a birth currence of sexual intercourse and a re- birth, father of her location at the of time Rather, pregnancy. he asked us to sulting duty Carton had no to disclose her location fiduciary duty hold that a attaches at the Heidbreder, and thus Heidbreder’s birth, upon giving

time of birth and that claim of fraudulent nondisclosure fails as a required the birth mother is to disclose matter of law. putative a father her location to whom she the absence of evidence to a attempting to locate her. knows finding of fraud or fraudulent nondisclo- impose fiduciary duty a We decline to on sure, there is no reason to wheth- address an unmarried birth mother to disclose her er either possible” would make it “not for putative to the father even if she location putative register father to or make the her location or knows he wants know putative register father’s failure to “no relationship with his child. establish We fault of his own” under Minn.Stat. any of court that has im- are not aware 8(i)-(ii). § subd. fiduciary duty posed such a on an unmar- putative ried mother to the father. birth legislature provided Because the has in There are numerous situations which an that lack knowledge pregnancy of justified unmarried birth mother would be putative birth does not excuse a putative from a fa- keeping information timely register, failure to it is clear that ther, including situations where the woman legislature intended to foreclose the relationship, has fled an abusive where the argument that the birth mother’s conceal- pregnancy was the result nonconsensual relating ment information to the intercourse, putative or where the father birth, pregnancy or including her location poses a danger to the child. birth, during pregnancy or at the time of Furthermore, impose no need to putative regis- there is excuses a father’s failure to ter, duty regardless such a on the mother in the birth whether the concealment protecting putative possible” interest of father’s made it putative “not for the legislature pro- timely register interests because the has father to and his failure to vided a father to timely register means for the “no fault of his own.”7 645.17(1) (2000). “bald The dissent asserts that asser- Stat. It would be absurd tions” contained in statement have no to conclude that a this father who knew However, interpreting pregnancy basis law or fact. of the but did not know the birth statute, legisla- presume greater protec- we must that the mother’s location is entitled to ture did not intend an absurd result. Minn. tion under the statute than a Registry no later than 30 timely Adoption thers’ Therefore, failure to Heidbreder’s the birth of the child order days after excused under Minn. cannot be register interest in a child who is the assert an on based Carton’s Stat. subject adoption. leg- The petition of a Car- location. Because of her concealment Fathers’ fraud, islature created the Minnesota is no there engage ton did Registry ap- after the court of Adoption by fraud address whether need to in- in A.M.P. but did not peals’ decision fa- could excuse mother birth compliance exception. clude a substantial timely register failure ther’s puta- to excuse a legislature’s decision Adoption Registry. Fathers’ Minnesota timely register only failure to tive father’s IV. convincing “clear and if he can establish possible” it was “not evidence” argues registration that his timely registered him and that his to have Adoption Fathers’ the Minnesota fault of “through no failure to timely deemed Registry should be own,” did legislature that the indicates the statute. substantially complied with untimely registration to be ex- not want 1950s, cases that In we stated two the putative father’s sub- cused based on the proceeding adoption in an deficiencies registration compliance with the stantial if approval of an not bar deadline. adoption substan- petitioning for party the statutory require- tially complied with agree with Heidbreder We Jordet, 248 In re Petition ments. See of Fathers’ of the Minnesota purpose (1957); 439, 642, 433, 646 80 N.W.2d Minn. a Registry provide is to mecha Adoption Anderson, Minn. Adoption 235 In re and identifying putative fathers nism for (1951). 278, 192,197, Rely- 50 N.W.2d 283 proceed notice of giving them decisions, appeals these the court ing on 259.52, § 1. subd. ings. See Minn.Stat. excep- compliance a recognized substantial in However, are also adoption registries 90/60-day rule. See to the former tion in putative tended to balance A.M.P., at 621. have nev- 507 N.W.2d We child, of the the birth terests those is putative father er addressed whether mother, adoptive parents. See In re and substantially if he com- entitled to notice 49, K.J.R., Ill.App.3d 227 293 Petition of statutory requirements for with the plied (1997). 113, 190, Ill.Dec. 687 N.E.2d Fathers’ registration with the Minnesota the interests of Adoption registries serve Adoption Registry. adoptive parents by estab the child and date after which lishing a clear cut-off out a substan decline to carve We putative that a father statutory there is little risk compliance exception to the tial timely register and who not oth who has failed putative that a father requirement to notice can dis not otherwise entitled petition is entitled to notice erwise 259.49, placement.8 rupt adoptive § While subd. adoption under Minn.Stat. compliance ex recognizing Fa- a substantial 1, the Minnesota must regis- enforcing support to have the child ignorant pregnancy and the is of both the who putative location. "a try birth mother’s to determine whether searched registered relation to child [the] father is serving the of a child In addition to interests subject sup- may be the of a child who is or Adop- adopted, the Minnesota Fathers' who is obligation.” port Minn.Stat. Registry of a also serves the interests tion (2000). by birth mother be- child who is raised authority responsible public cause it allows prompt fathers who action the father ception would benefit timely register, exception such an arbitrary pu- fail to child’s is neither nor birth permanence would also weaken nitive, logical instead a and neces- but registries give adopted stability adoption sary outgrowth legitimate of the State’s children. early interest in the child’s need for permanence stability. leg- enacting decided that a islature has K, Robert O. v. Russell 80 N.Y.2d assert his interest in promptly must act (1992). N.Y.S.2d 604 N.E.2d 103-04 recognize a child. Heidbreder’s We creating compli- Because substantial day registration only one late. How- exception ance would defeat one statute, ever, reg- under the Heidbreder’s purposes Adop- of the Fathers’ Minnesota any differently istration cannot be treated Registry permanent tion and stable — week, one one registration than a adoptive placements hold that sub- —we month, year, one or one decade late. The compliance registration stantial with the infi- give putative state father an cannot requirements does not excuse a time to claim an interest in nite amount of timely register. father’s failure to point, At the child. some knowing raising father’s interest V. gives way

child to the child’s interest having permanent reject stable home. We also Heidbreder’s unjust- may While the deadline here seem registration claim that the deadline of 30 ly putative to the father who misses short 259.52, § days after birth Minn.Stat. deadline, justified period by the the is the 7, subd. is a statute of limitations that can early permanent place- need for and stable by tolled be fraudulent concealment. Gen much leg- ment. No matter how time the erally, a statute of limitations affects a provides registration, pos- islature for party’s remedy right. not his State ex See putative sibility that a father will miss the Kami, 523, 527, rel. Moser v. 181 Minn. by day one can never be eliminat- deadline (1930). 802, Here, 233 804 N.W. Minn. legisla- ed. will not undermine the We provide § 259.52 Stat. does not reme putative that a ture’s determination father dy putative to a father but rather termi adop- not otherwise entitled to notice of an nates a father’s substantive proceeding tion under Minn.Stat. subject adoption to a child who is the of an subd. must within 30 of petition timely register. if he fails to protect by the child’s his interests birth Therefore, recognizing compliance ex- substantial registration deadline is not a statute of ception for who misses limitations. statutory regis- his deadline but claims regis Even if we were to treat the recognized tration should nonetheless be tration deadline as statute of limitations promptly upon learning he acted by that could be tolled conceal fraudulent register. of the need to ment, Heidbreder would not be entitled to that [the To conclude father] duty in relief because Carton had no promptly acted once he became aware of form Heidbreder of her location or other fundamentally is to miscon- child protecting rights. assist him in wise his strue whose timetable is relevant. Lehr, n. See 463 U.S. 265 103 S.Ct. Promptness is measured terms of the (noting generally that ac baby’s by “[i]t the onset of the fa- is life cepted adversary system ther’s awareness. The demand for feature of our Carton, he that who as far as ably expect that knows who potential defendant that a alone, child raising would knew be run limitations about the statute promise her advice”). would not reconsider plaintiff duty give has no adoption. for put up the child suggested that had was aware Carton VI. prom- that adoption possibility promissory that argues Heidbreder also up for was put not to the child ise Carton respondents estoppel bars “absolutely her he was made after he told paternity seeking dismissal from right.” it adoption because is “not against” him she promised because Carton action also believed Carton up child for put his “never ever” when she left him. “scared and confused” respon- contends that He also adoption. circumstances, Heidbreder these Under oppos- from are barred dents reasonably believe that a “scared could not Carton has relief because ing equitable would not reconsider and confused” Carton “unclean hands.” relationship, adoption after she ended their the doc party seeking A to invoke to reveal her away, moved and refused estoppel promissory equitable trine of Indeed, actions a birth location. such (1) prom that proving has the burden mother, are consistent with a anything, if (2) made; were ises or inducements put up her child mother’s decision birth promises; reasonably upon relied interference from without (3) estoppel if he will be harmed put putative father and would Inc. Hydra-Mac, v. Onan applied. is not protect of the need to father on notice (Minn.1990). Corp., N.W.2d rights. assume, reviewing sum as we must We re argues promised He- judgment, that Carton mary oppose equi cannot spondents and Carton put up the child she would never idbreder with “un relief because Carton acted table Nonetheless, Heidbreder’s adoption. “unclean The doctrine of clean hands.” claim fails because we estoppel promissory inequitably party a who acted hands” bars law, that, matter of it was as a conclude Gully relief. See obtaining equitable from rely on for Heidbreder unreasonable (Minn.1999). 814, 825 Gully, v. 599 N.W.2d him. See promise after she left Carton’s “unclean party It does not bar Restoration, City Inc. v. St. Nicollet of request equita opposing from hands” (Minn.1995) Paul, 845, 848 533 N.W.2d Here, it is other side. relief ble ap summary judgment that (recognizing Heidbreder, seeking eq respondents, not if estoppel claim promissory on propriate whether and it is irrelevant uitable relief alleged promise was reliance on plaintiffs acted with anyone other than Heidbreder law). as a matter unreasonable Therefore, we do not hands.” “unclean Carton, her ro while effectively ended need to address whether Carton fraud, with “unclean any when acted relationship engaging with Heidbreder mantic not be respondents would to tell hands” such that Minnesota and refused she moved to they if were relief equitable Once that relation entitled him where she was.9 seeking such relief.10 ended, not reason- could ship relationship after their wanted to continue contact with He- Carton maintained 9. While left. she e-mail, as- Heidbreder does not via idbreder romantically were still that he and Carton sert respon- even if to us that 10. It is not clear she that Carton ever indicated involved or seeking equitable and Car- relief dents were 372 protection only

VII. when the father “demon strates a full responsi commitment to the constitu- now turn to Heidbreder’s We parenthood by ‘com[ing] bilities of forward §§ arguments tional that Minn.Stat. 259.49 ” participate rearing process equal his child.’ and 259.52 violate due they Lehr, to him protection applied 261, 103 as because (quot 463 U.S. at S.Ct. 2985 deprived parental him of his 1760). Caban, 392, ing 441 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. rights in gave greater While the Court has never addressed the proceeding than him. degree of involvement a must have to demonstrate “a full commit constitutionality of a stat responsibilities parent ment” to the that is question ute is law reviewed de hood, it recognized has that a appeal. novo on Associated Builders & required father could demonstrate Ventura, Contractors v. 610 N.W.2d (Minn.2000). presumed “significant commitment if he has a 298 Statutes are custo party challeng dial, to be constitutional and the personal, or financial relationship” ing constitutionality of a statute “must Lehr, with the child. 463 at U.S. 103 very heavy meet the burden of demon S.Ct. 2985.

strating beyond a reasonable doubt the statute is unconstitutional.” Id. at 299. Here, Heidbreder is not enti process protection tled to due of his inter A. Procedural Due Process est K.M.C. because he does not have a may A person allege pro custodial, personal or financial relationship process cedural due violation unless the with K.M.C. Heidbreder never had a cus person protected property liberty has a right todial to K.M.C. See Minn.Stat. Mitchell, interest at stake. State v. 577 (2000) (providing (Minn.1998). N.W.2d birth mother who is not married to child’s argues protected liberty that he has a conception father at time of or birth has having relationship interest custody paternity sole of child until is es biological K.M.C. he is her fa- judicial tablished proceeding). ad However, ther.11 the mere existence of a dition, there is no evidence in the record biological connection between a child and a a conclusion that Heid process father does not confer due personal breder had a relationship with protection parental on the K.M.C. The record is also void of Lehr, 260-61, interests. U.S. evidence that provided, or at Mohammed, (citing S.Ct. 2985 Caban v. tempted provide, support to financial 380, 397, 441 U.S. S.Ct. during pregnancy (1979) or to K.M.C. (Stewart, J., L.Ed.2d 297 dissent- Therefore, ing)). following A her birth. putative pro father’s interest in know- due ing process his child is entitled to due not require recognition cess does of Heid ever, appro- ton had it “unclean hands” that we do need to address the issue

priate deny prospective adoptive parents respondents legal here because seek rather equitable relief the based on conduct of the equitable than relief. birth mother. The interests of the birth adoptive always parents mother and are not Although parties dispute 11. the do not aligned they may as are here and there be father, biological Heidbreder is K.M.C.'s unjust situations in which it would be adjudicated biological has never been the fa- deny adoptive parents equitable relief based ther of K.M.C. on the conduct of the birth mother. How- putative scheme denied a father who had putative as a interest K.M.C. breder’s expressed, belatedly, an in his father.12 interest child because: did not have Because Heidbreder K.M.C., relationship with an established right [T]he to receive notice was com- issue is whether the only process due By the pletely appellant’s within control. oppor adequately protected state “has mailing postcard putative a to the father Lehr, relationship.” a tunity to form such registry, guaranteed he could have 262-63, 103 at S.Ct. 463 U.S. any proceed- notice of he would receive ing adopt possibility Jessica. The Lehr, rejected pro- a due the Court may that he have failed to do so because statutory York challenge to a New cess ignorance of his of the law cannot be a required to our own that scheme similar criticizing for the law sufficient reason petition putative to a adoption notice of an Legislature York con- itself. New father into only putative if the fell father open-ended that a more notice included cluded categories, of seven which one requirement merely complicate registered fathers who had putative adoption registry. priva- The Court process, New York’s threaten statutory mothers, ade- that the scheme cy concluded interests of unwed create protected putative op- a quately controversy, unnecessary the risk of relationship a portunity to establish impair finality desired statutory procedure his child because the decrees. fa- unlikely responsible to omit most (footnote omit- Id. at 103 S.Ct. 2985 place “qualification thers and did ted). * * * beyond control of an inter- notice rejected putative fa- Lehr, The Court also

ested father.” U.S. statutory if ther’s claim that even no 103 S.Ct. 2985. The Court found though adequately protected scheme process violation even due weeks, only maintaining Carton for a few 12. The dissent concludes that Heidbreder e-mail, through consult- commitment contact with Carton demonstrated sufficient entitling process protec- trying ing attorney, to due an to locate her indi- K.M.C. him nothing because he “did to avoid the tion an to rear the child. We dis- cates intent However, responsibilities parenthood.” agree. acquire protected putative father does not unequivocally Heidbreder’s actions do not liberty by merely failing interest in his child custody assume full indicate an intent to anything parental responsibili- do to avoid his Rather, (and K.M.C. his actions inaction affirmatively A father must ties. failing any steps to take to obtain visitation or responsi- demonstrate a commitment to such to ensure that the child received financial bilities. him) equally consistent with from are those of a father who does not want right unwed father’s to a continued [A]n adop- adopted he believes his child by relationship parental defined] [is right” tion is “not but intends to avoid assum- responsibility. parental manifestation of * * * ing responsibility providing quali- this to mean that the [W]e take and financial needs sim- child's emotional fying requires interest of an unwed waiting ply for the birth mother to “send custody willingness himself to assume full may papers.” have While Heidbreder [him] merely adoption the to block of child—not sincerely relationship wanted a with K.M.C. by others. old, 387, days X., than 30 his before she was more Raquel 76 N.Y.2d 559 In re Marie (1990). to actions do not demonstrate a commitment N.E.2d 428 N.Y.S.2d 559 responsibilities with that rela- the associated interprets Heidbreder's actions The dissent tionship process requires due telling support but such that in Carton he would given adoption, living he be a voice in K.M.C.’sfuture. with would not protect than 30 old to a was more to establish relation- opportunity putative inadequate is interests as a father case,” he in the “normal ship with his child he did not know Carton was “special to notice” entitled nonetheless Minnesota, did not know Minnesota law and birth mother trial court because the register, him to and he was required pro- filed an affiliation that he had “knew anything to do under Iowa law to required 264-65, Id. at in another court.” ceeding paren- of termination of his receive notice stated: The Court 103 S.Ct. 2985. pending adoption tal of his child nothing amounts to more argument This However, the issue here is not Iowa. notice attack on the an indirect than part statutory of the whether one York statute. of the New provisions Adoption Minnesota Fathers’ scheme—the in facilitat- state interests legitimate The Registry adequately protected Heidbre- — young children and ing interests, der’s but whether the entire complet- adoption proceeding having the adopted legislature scheme ade- underlie the entire expeditiously that ed opportuni- quately protected Heidbreder’s justify a trial also statutory scheme ty relationship with K.M.C. We to form require to all in- judge’s determination statutes, applied conclude that as to precisely to parties to adhere terested Heidbreder, adequately protected op- of the stat- procedural requirements relationship portunity to establish require does not ute. The Constitution K.M.C. litigant give or a judge a trial either statutory scheme here is almost nonparties pre- who are special notice to statutory upheld in identical to the scheme asserting pro- sumptively capable of only Lehr. The material factual distinction the New rights. own Since tecting their between the two cases is here the adequately protected ap- statutes York putative father is not a resident establishing pellant’s inchoate interest required register. state in which he was Jessica, find no relationship with we However, fact that is not a Heidbreder that his constitutional in the claim merit does not Minnesota resident make Family because the rights were offended statutory ap- scheme unconstitutional as with the notice strictly complied Court plied to him because the scheme is not provisions of the statute. “likely many responsible to omit fathers” (footnote 265, 103 omit- Id. at S.Ct. “qualifi- live outside of Minnesota and who ted). beyond cation for notice the control [is] argues requirement that the living of an interest father” out- Lehr, state, the Minnesota Fa- side the 463 U.S. at that he Registry before K.M.C. S.Ct. 2985.13 Adoption thers’ develop relationship inappli- opportunity cient that Lehr is 13. The dissent concludes cable here because unlike that would to due with K.M.C. be entitled Lehr, years did not wait legislature process protection. While the relationship with the child and establish a categories puta- could have included other every grasp the turn to Heidbreder “tried among those entitled to notice of tive fathers relationship develop a with his opportunity to adoption proceeding including an — respon- offspring accept measure of some fathers who live with the birth mother at However, sibility Lehr for his child's future.” point during pregnancy or who ex- some here is controls our decision because the issue press opposition no ba- —there grasp the not whether Heidbreder tried to concluding requires process that due sis opportunity develop relationship with categories these fathers. life, notice to point but rather K.M.C. at some in her statutory requires notice to the provided a suffi- Our scheme whether the state or had sufficient reason to registering with the breder knew In addition to a Adoption Registry, believe that Carton was not Iowa. Minnesota Fathers’ Therefore, father can ensure for him to non-resident it was reasonable rights are not terminated parental rely exclusively that his on assume he could the 259.52, 8, by § subd. under Minn.Stat. provisions protect Iowa his inter- law paternity action. See Minn. commencing circumstances, a ests. Under Heidbre- 1(b)(6) (2000). § subd. There Stat. simply der could have done more than * * * § requirement is no assume Carton “would send [him] 1(b)(6), action be paternity that the papers.” opportunities Heidbreder had Therefore, a commenced in Minnesota. under Iowa law to establish a sufficient may protect his interest putative father registered commitment. He could have by commencing paternity a action a child Paternity with the Iowa Declaration of the child is more in his own state before paternity a action Registry or commenced days than 30 old. addition, In in Iowa.14 while Heidbreder certainty did not know with where Carton Furthermore, though even Heidbreder was, to put he had sufficient information resident, law did not is an Iowa Minnesota possible him on notice that it was she was opportunity foreclose his to establish Heid- in Illinois or Minnesota.15 Both Illinois required relationship with K.M.C. procedure applicable paternity action categories putative fathers who were same statutory brought by scheme the birth mother. See Iowa Code entitled to notice under the (2001). may A com- upheld While the dissent would like 600B.7 birth mother in Lehr. during pregnan- protect puta- paternity mence a action legislature to do more to (2001). cy. rights, legislature provid- Iowa Code 600B.9 tive father’s has required process protection ed all the due under the Court’s decision in Lehr. 15. The dissent asserts that our conclusion Furthermore, disagree that Heidbreder had sufficient information we dissent’s "grasp[ed] on notice that Carton could be in Minneso- has be conclusion Heidbreder best,” "speculative, opportunity” a commit- ta or Illinois to demonstrate “simplistic” light frequency responsibilities parenthood. of the ease ment to the up people with which now move from state to During pregnancy and until 31 Carton’s birth, things disagree. only He- state. We after K.M.C.’s arguably did in an effort to establish idbreder on no- Our that Heidbreder was conclusion offspring asking relationship with his in Minnesota or tice that Carton could be family her Carton and her and friends about on the information Heidbre- Illinois is based attorney. meeting an location and knew Car- der knew or believed. Heidbreder Merely asking location does about Carton’s and that her relatives in Minnesota ton had responsi- not indicate an intent to assume the moving to Minnesota. While He- mother was parenthood. Similarly, Heidbre- bilities of relationship Carton’s with her idbreder knew attorney with an do not indi- der’s discussions was strained and Carton told Heid- mother responsibilities. an intent to assume such cate move to Minnesota with breder she would not meeting attorney, After with the mother, recognize that it is reasonable to reason, decided, whatever not to avail preg- possibility that a there was at least legal opportunities available to himself of the year old wom- "scared and confused” 18 nant relationship with K.M.C. him to establish might request assistance from her mother an Rather, nothing chose to do if she or out-of-state relatives assistance papers. him Based wait for Carton send father to know her did not want the birth facts, disagree we with dissent's con- on these addition, knew that In location. oppor- "grasp[ed] the clusion that Heidbreder gone earlier in the Carton had to Illinois tunity” full to demonstrate a commitment that he believed pregnancy and he testified K.M.C. light Illinois. of Heidbre- Carton was in testimony other facts he knew about may pater- der's 14. A commence Illinois, imputing no- according Carton’s contacts with nity to the same action Iowa satisfy relationship, with the statutes provided Heidbreder such and Minnesota process requirements. due a commitment. opportunity to establish pa- commenced a Heidbreder could have Equal B. Protection. registered ternity in either state or action Heidbreder claims that Minn. provided by adoption registries with the §§ equal 259.49 and 259.52 violate Stat. options Any of the above both states. applied him protection as because Car position in a put would have more favorable un ton receives treatment commit- a sufficient argue he established proceeding than der the statutes protection.16 process due ment to warrant argument This for the K.M.C. Therefore, circumstances applied as to the merit. It is well established is without case, §§ 259.49 and of this parents can that the state treat unmarried Heidbreder’s adequately protected 259.52 differently respect to their with opportunity required com- to establish adoption proceeding par an based on each necessary process protec- for due mitment Lehr, relationship ent’s to the child. tion to arise. 267-68, Equal U.S. at 103 S.Ct. 2985. provide more That the statutes could prohibit not protection does the state from puta- for the greater opportunity time or treating a mother an birth with established required rela- tive father to establish relationship with the child more custodial that is left to tionship policy is a decision favorably than a father who does recognized in legislature. The Court relationship. an established Id. have may require legislature Lehr mother, As the birth Carton had an estab statutory procedures as strict adherence to relationship with lished custodial K.M.C. process satisfies due long as the statute law. under Minnesota See Minn.Stat. constraints. 463 U.S. S.Ct. contrast, 1. In Legislature has 2985. The Minnesota relationship did not have an established policy made choices similar those made K.M.C., nor did he avail himself of the by Legislature at issue in the New York opportunities provided to him to establish provide Lehr. the statutes ade- Because relationship. circum such Under these quate opportunity stances, to be heard notice Heidbreder were not established a suffi- similarly respect someone who has situated with to their re K.M.C., relationship protected to create a lationship equal protection cient liberty adequately pro- require legislature give interest and also does opportunity opportunity to create the same as Car- tected Heidbreder’s registration We tice to him that Carton could be in Illinois note that with another "speculative." cannot be labeled registry state’s does not entitle a fa- people move from state to The fact that §§ ther to notice under Minn.Stat. 259.49 or only that the state buttresses our conclusion registration reg- If with an 259.52. fact Carton had out of state does not moved is, itself, istry state sufficient to register. excuse failure to Be- Heidbreder's a substantial commitment to the demonstrate people cause to state with move from state child, arguably then father is enti- frequency, ease and Heidbreder could not process protection regardless tled to due stay reasonably assume that Carton would recognizes registra- state law such whether especially light the fact Iowa. This is true in tion. We need not address the issue here had relatives in Heidbreder knew Carton presented because we are not with a situation Illinois, Minnesota and contacts in and knew registered in which that she did not want Heidbreder to know registry. another state's where she was. PAGE, (dissenting). Justice best opinion about K.M.C.’s to voice an ton adoption by with- or to block the interests respectfully I dissent because the court’s holding consent. (1) improperly applies Minn.Stat. decision (2000), to the facts of this subd. 8 VIII. (2) as a result violates Heidbre- case and “arro- in our asserts The dissent right process. to due der’s possibility have foreclosed gance” we child can be of the that the best interests majority of during Before and Car- and stable by having permanent met pregnancy, Heidbreder and Carton ton’s fa- biological the child’s relationship with time, in At that Heidbreder lived Iowa. concluded, how- legislature The has ther. point At was 19 and Carton was 18. some be ever, interests will that a child’s best early stages preg- during the Carton’s if the adoption proceeding in an served nancy, Heidbreder and Carton discussed entitled to any putative father not rights of unequivocally adoption, and Heidbreder adoption under Minn.Stat. of her notice opposed that he was to the idea. stated puta- unless the § 259.49 are terminated place agreed that she would Carton with the Minnesota registered tive father up adoption. Eventually, He- the child Adoption Registry before Fathers’ living together, tried idbreder Carton days old or the more than 30 child is period. for a Ulti- they which did short register failure to is ex- putative father’s mately, separated and Carton Heidbreder cused under Carton, because, according she and He- 8(i)-(iii). today is not made decision Our get along.1 could not idbreder to the rather in deference arrogance, but of when a determination legislature’s left Iowa and Upon separating, Carton stability permanence child’s interest Minnesota, living various moved to priority adoptive placement in an takes did not tell Heidbreder where places. She ’ has in over interest Minnesota, liv- she moved. She moved child. relationship with the establishing a in St. ing grandparents first with her carefully balanced the legislature has preg- at a for unwed and then home Cloud different the child and interests of and Heidbreder teenagers. nant Carton decision, father, Heid- applied its as con- contact via e-mail but she maintained breder, not violate the constitution. does was. to tell him where she tinued to refuse circumstances, nothing would Under these family and friends also directed disregard than for us to arrogant more be whereabouts to Heidbre- not to reveal her concerning the decision legislature’s attempted to find Carton Heidbreder der. of a child out of desire best interests friends where asking her relatives and beyond father time give any- was, they to tell him but refused she an legislature to assert prescribed by the addition, attempted thing. interest in a child. grandparents contact Carton’s ask them where Carton Minnesota to

Affirmed. however, not, states, the conclusion does court "Carton and 1. The unwilling to do so. either unfit or they together.” that he is argued during time lived Moreover, accurate, and Car- that Heidbreder mo- the fact that the court’s While it seems that, get along does not argued suggest ton and could pointing is to tive in this out Heidbreder's fail- engaged support the conclusion that they argued, after birth was within 30 making parent or ure to him either unfit to conduct record not excused. unwilling parent his child. The be, day, unable to do so because same Heidbreder found a website for might but was grandparent’s Adoption Registry not know the last the Minnesota Fathers’ he did people who knew would not tell registered. name and him. I. that, in an indicates effort to

The record consulted an protect rights, his Heidbreder adoption pro- To receive of an notice “setting up to discuss attorney in Iowa ceeding, putative fathers whose names are payments and visitation child not included on the child’s birth certificate Dep. Tr. at 37. He- rights.” Heidbreder and who are otherwise entitled to no- attorney that the he did not idbreder told 259.49, § pursuant tice to Minn.Stat. adop- would consider believe that Carton (2000), register must with the Fathers’ and, therefore, tion for their child the two Adoption Registry days within 30 of the parental did not discuss Heidbreder’s child’s birth unless excused. Minn.Stat. attorney in that context. The rights told (2000). register 259.52 Failure to within that, event, any in his consent Heidbreder period may that time if be excused the necessary was for under Iowa putative proves by father and con- clear attorney law. Heidbreder consid- “(i) vincing possi- evidence that it was not hiring private investigator to locate ered register to period ble for him within the of Carton, but did not do so. Heidbreder (ii) 7; specified time in subdivision his attorney and the also considered institut- register failure to was fault through no of action, ing paternity but Heidbreder tes- (iii) own; registered his he within ten that, know they because did not tified days possible it him after became for to was, attorney un- where Carton was file.” Minn.Stat. Lack subd. 8. sure of where to commence such an action. knowledge pregnancy of or birth is not attorney Heidbreder and the decided to an excuse under the statute. Id. The wait for to contact them with Carton infor- court concludes that Heidbreder did not mation her location. about it possible show that was not for him to register register or that his failure to was began adoption proceedings

Carton through no fault of his own. Based on the (CHS) Society Home Children’s while however, presented, facts Heidbreder’s pregnant teenagers. at the home for Car- days failure to file within KM.C.’s representative ton told CHS that she birth was excused under section go knew Heidbreder would not want her to subdivision 8. through adoption. A repre- CHS that, sentative told if Carton she omitted possible regis- it to Was Heidbreder’s name from the birth certifi- Adoption ter with the Minnesota Fathers’ cate, stop Heidbreder would not be able to Registry days, the 30 that within such his registered unless he with the register failure to was his fault? The an- Adoption Registry Minnesota Fathers’ unquestionably It swer no. is true in days within 30 of the child’s birth. theory that Heidbreder could have at- gave August tempted protect parental birth to K.M.C. on states, 2000. Carton omitted Heidbreder’s each of legal but such a certificate, requirement name from the birth un- be inefficient and matter, placed adoptive practical K.M.C. was in an home As a it reasonable. was days Thirty-one days possible” two later. register after “not for Heidbreder to birth, state, given K.M.C.’s learned that he did not know way knowing K.M.C. had been born Minnesota. That and had no where Carton he to address either would after she left Iowa. Because son whether make living was Minnesota, possible’ ‘not for a that she it did not know or make the attempt protect register fail- no reason had ” own,’ ‘no opposed register ure to fault of his parental rights Minnesota as such, jurisdiction. suggests I would court either fraud or fraud- As some other puta- possible” it was ulent nondisclosure would excuse conclude that “not required untimely registration. tive father’s This within however, hollow, suggestion rings given failure to 30-day period time that his subsequent “through no of his own.” court’s conclusion that a register was fault registered claim for fraud or nondisclo- Finally, because Heidbreder fraudulent possible cannot exist mother within 10 when it became sure birth so, duty fiduciary I a father of for him to do would conclude has no to inform place process, and of by clear the child’s birth. Heidbreder demonstrated 259.52, his failure to the court has emasculated section convincing evidence that 8(i)-(iii), section violated timely register was excused under subdivision and Minn. (2000) 259.52, (“Every § 645.16 law shall 8. Stat. be subdivision construed, possible, if give to effect to all that statutory provision on the Based of provisions.”). Although its lack knowl- knowledge of or birth pregnancy “lack of an edge pregnancy of or birth is not ac- putative failure does not excuse father’s register, for reason failure to ceptable timely register,” to court asserts: knowledge lack of here is of where issue legislature clear that the intended [I]t is register. to argument that the birth foreclose The court states that it would be “ab- any concealment information mother’s of that father birth, putative surd to conclude who in- relating pregnancy to the or pregnancy knew of but did know cluding during pregnancy her location or mother’s entitled birth, the birth location is at time of excuses a than greater protection under the statute of register, regardless failure to of ignorant father who was both made it “not whether the concealment pregnancy and mother’s loca- the birth possible” to time- father interpretation This of section tion.” ly timely reg- his register and failure to 259.52, all strips subdivision it of mean- fault of his ister “no own.” leaving no fathers to whom ing by group of Interestingly, provides the court no exception only can apply. The fathers support this as- statement. The bald protection under subdivision 8 entitled in contained have sertions this statement in the preg- are fathers who fact knew of Moreover, in no in fact or law. basis birth, given or that lack of knowl- nancy logical stopping point no to the there is pregnancy is not an ex- edge of or birth on the reasoning. court’s line of Based that cuse. The court’s conclusion fathers interpretation the “lack court’s know and who do not know of who fathers knowledge” provision, it not clear that is from pregnancy the birth or are excluded there is circumstance that only 8 is not protection under subdivision possible” register “not and make it legally impermissible. See absurd, but thereby qualify as an under sub- excuse (2) (2000). 645.17(1), 645.16, §§ Minn.Stat. (i)-(iii) 259.52, parts of section subdivision that, states, court also “while Heidbreder By stating “[i]n the absence finding certainty of fraud or not know with where evidence to did put nondisclosure, was, is no rea- he had sufficient information fraudulent there Therefore, possible Registry. that it she was I him on notice was would conclude in Minnesota.” This statement Illinois or that demonstrated clear best, overly simplis- speculative,2 is convincing it evidence tic, given frequency the ease possible register for him to within the people from state to state at which moved period provided time century. the end of the 20th The court’s (2000), subd. 7 fail- his implies that a statement ure to do so should be excused. attempt protect rights every must might

state where the birth mother be. II. register That Heidbreder did not in Illi- If, concludes, as the court Heidbreder’s nois, was, where he believed Carton failure to is not excused under Iowa, not, believed where he Carton was section subdivision then Heidbre analysis. Registration irrelevant to the in maintaining parental der’s interest either state would not have saved Heidbre- protection has been denied under Registration der under Minnesota law. the Due Process Clause. See Lehr v. Rob either Illinois or Iowa would not have enti- ertson, 248, 261, 463 U.S. 103 S.Ct. tled Heidbreder to notice under Minneso- (1983). 77 L.Ed.2d 614 A father is entitled statutory ta’s scheme. Nor is it true process to due when he “demonstrates a registration Heidbreder’s in another state responsibilities full commitment to the convincing would have been clear and evi- parenthood by ‘com[ing] partic forward possible that it him dence was for ” ipate in rearing of his child.’ Id. register in Minnesota or that his failure to Mohammed, (quoting Caban v. 441 U.S. register through this state was no fault 380, 392, 99 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed.2d 297 of his own. (1979)). matters here is that What Heidbreder Here, Heidbreder demonstrated full did not know where Carton was when commitment to born, responsibilities par- K.M.C. was did not find out where clearly until enthood. Heidbreder communicat- day she was the 31st after KM.C.’s birth, immediately registered supported and then ed to Carton that he their hav- Adoption with the Minnesota Fathers’ ing opposed the child and that was umbrage suggestion 2. The court takes maybe at around her brothers and sisters that transfer, no, speculative that its statement is and asserts I could and she said I’m not that Heidbreder had sufficient information to going to follow her. And she said she would because, believe that Carton was in Minnesota never ever move with her mom. And her course, pregnant a "scared and confused” barely got along mom and her at all. And teenager despite would return to her mother family she me told she didn’t like the —she This, too, relationship. pure their bad them, family up loved but she didn't like the Moreover, speculation. the record makes it grandparents here because her and her clear that Heidbreder knew that Carton had a estranged accept were and no one would relationship bad with her mother and had pregnancy. they her And she said wouldn’t been told Carton that she would "never anybody let up here wouldn't —her her— move to Minnesota with her mother.” Heid- kicked mom her out of the house in the first 32, 49-50; Dep. Dep. breder Tr. at Carton Tr. place, so I wouldn't think that she would at 32-33. Heidbreder testified: up move here with her mom. And she said thing, just people up Because for one she didn’t like the I didn't think she—I here. Thus, Dep. didn’t—she told me she would never Tr. at want 49-50. Heid- up every to live there because when we were breder had to believe that reason Car- together I told her if she wanted to be ton was not in Minnesota. is, part, the record at least mislead- deposition, Heidbreder In his adoption.3 fact, Heidbreder could not have ing. testified: support to provided financial your checking on you put Did her Q. the birth for the same following K.M.C.

account? timely under reason he could not it. about A. I talked to her 7. did not section subdivision He you Did it? Q. do and, given they know where were Carton’s to. No. She didn’t want A. rejection family’s of Heidbreder’s involve- life, there no viable ment Carton’s was support Q. told she had more her [I] providing support. for vehicle financial that. and she didn’t need do however, is important, the fact More you you her that Q. So didn’t tell placed days for two K.M.C. she support whatever decision court, and, according birth after her would make? parental Heidbreder’s were termi- support adoption I would not nated 30 after her birth. A. ^[*] * * abortion. KM.C.’s With respect to the time birth, court fails to period recognize before you indi- Q. you And earlier that said that, provided money for while Carton had lot of cated to her she security deposit first month’s rent child? having for apartment, their also lease, Right. thereby himself signed making A. financially each responsible the rent you, right? Q. Working with that he month. Heidbreder testified Right. A. name putting talked with Carton about 25, 39, Heid- Dep. Tr. account, did checking but Carton on ap- also to medical went Carton’s breder testified, “I Heidbreder not want this. they togeth- with her and lived pointments my money mon- felt that was her generally period during time Carton’s for a of er they cost of ey Together, shared the [].” minimum, signifies At a this pregnancy. and and Heidbreder’s groceries the food provide to emotional Heidbreder’s effort bought maternity family and mother support moral to Carton and inten- Thus, does for Carton. the record clothes relationship personal to a tion establish that Heidbreder support not the assertion Evidently, the court counts with K.M.C. fi- attempt provide provide not or to did together they fact that did not remain preg- her support during nancial to Carton against Heidbreder. as a strike nancy. court, is According to the record “[t]he Iowa, Carton left When any also void of evidence that e-mail, with her via maintained contact provide, to finan- attempted provided, through attempting also locate her during pregnan- while support cial to Carton Although family and friends. following her This Carton’s cy or to birth.” K.M.C. talked only years age, 19 of a mischaracterization of relies on assertion sincerely any that father or mother disdainfully to me court dismisses Heidbre- 3. The being responsibility desiring on the opposition he be- take der’s adoption was saying parent believe that right.” Is it was "not the court lieved mother, father, One right” or her children. "not for his it will or even a that tell trying to point the may not wonders what court she have for what reasons he or wanting adopted? It seems make. his or her child attorney significance biological child with an about connec- rights. visitation Heidbreder wasted no tion is that it the natural offers father an time in with the Minnesota Fa- registering opportunity possess- that no other male Adoption Registry ther’s once he learned to develop relationship es with his sum, In where Carton was located. Heid- offspring. If that grasps opportunity he responsi- breder did to avoid the nothing accepts responsi- some measure of rather, parenthood; bilities of each action future, bility for may enjoy the child’s of embracing he took had the effect those parent-child blessings of the rela- responsibilities. viewed without When tionship uniquely and make valuable father, hostility only toward this rea- development. contributions to the child’s sonable based on conclusion the record 262, clear, at Id. 2985. It is S.Ct. as us, steps before is that Heidbreder took above, discussed grasped that Heidbreder that effort part evince a clear on his opportunity and has demonstrated participate rearing come forward to responsibilities full commitment to the of his child. parenthood by coming partici- forward to heavily The court on Lehr relies to con- pate in the his child.4 rearing of For this statutes, as applied clude “the to He- reason, scheme, statutory Minnesota’s as idbreder, protected adequately oppor- interpreted decision, by today’s does not tunity a relationship to establish adequately protect parental Heidbreder’s Lehr, K.M.C.” the Court determined rights and pro- results in denial of due father, who was a New York 259.52, cess. Put bluntly, section subdivi- resident, presumptively capable of as- sion protect exists to father who is serting protecting rights, his own but not otherwise entitled notice under sec- having years faded to do so waited 2 be- tion and who subdivision did not coming fore to assert paternity. forward 262-65, expiration before the of the 30- U.S. S.Ct. 2985. Unlike Lehr, day period the father in Heidbreder made sure set forth in section sub- partic- that Carton knew he wanted division if can the father demonstrate ipate in rearing K.M.C. even before clear and convincing evidence that it was Heidbreder, however, KM.C.’s birth. had possible register, for him to that it was knowledge and, no of where Carton lived having his fault for register, failed to thus, capable protecting was not his and that registered he within 10 after rights. Because Lehr did not involve it possible became to do so. If subdivision every grasp father who tried at turn to 8, here, read, on presented the facts is as develop a opportunity relationship does, the court to exclude a father such as offspring accept and some measure of protection, Heidbreder from its then the responsibility future, for his child’s statutory protect scheme fails a father’s court’s Lehr’s holding reliance on is mis- opportunity parent-child to form the rela- placed. and, tionship consequently, violates due Lehr, In process. stated: Court parenthood by

4. The 'com[ing] court asserts that Heidbreder’s ities of actions forward to ” "unequivocally did not indicate an intent Lehr, participate rearing in the of his child.’ custody” assume full of his child. Whether 261, (quoting 463 U.S. at S.Ct. indicated an intent assume "full custo- Caban, 1760). 441 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. I dy” question is not the to be answered. The conclude, supports, and the record that he question correct whether is he "demon- did. responsibil- a full to the strate[d] commitment connection with biological A father’s D.M.S., Petitioner, Appellant, uniquely make valuable him to equips

child development. child’s to the contributions v. Lehr, 2985. 103 S.Ct. U.S. See Kennedy BARBER, Defendant, fore- today’s decision arrogance,5 By its inter- best possibility closes Treat- The Professional Association of by having met a child can be ests (PATH), non-profit ment Homes relationship with the permanent stable Corporation, Respondent. Minnesota so, doing natural father. child’s No. C8-00-2227. inadequacies sys- exposes the decision protecting fails in both the tem Supreme of Minnesota. Court of the and the best interests of fathers who, on the some unfitness children absent June them. part, need ANDERSON, H. Justice PAUL

(dissenting). Page. join in the of Justice

I dissent

GILBERT, (dissenting). Justice join Page. in the of Justice

I dissent (dis- ANDERSON, H. Justice

PAUL

senting). majority opinion has

I conclude that the opin- unnecessarily reach.

an broad especially problematic is

ion’s broad reach who, the most putative fathers intentions, seek to assert

honorable rights, obligations. their duties and

fulfill

Therefore, agreement with general I am in Page

the conclusions reached Justice am, however, join his I com- dissent. I add a do concur

pelled proviso. majority opinion assessment that the

arrogant hostile. statutory hostility scheme section arrogance lies to Minnesota’s The court’s in its generally, this father putative fathers and to subdivision 8. reading in its out of specifically, as well as

Case Details

Case Name: Heidbreder v. Carton

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jun 13, 2002

Citation: 645 N.W.2d 355

Docket Number: C0-01-739

Court Abbreviation: Minn.