Witso v. Overby

legal process, obstructed underlying son when he conduct if the defendant’s a impose was consecu- permitted a dan court poses special the crime committing Myers has asserted no ad- (citing State tive sentence. life. Id. at 385 to human ger (Minn. grounds for Nunn, why ditional court’s sen- v. case, 1980)). was we improper. Accordingly, at tence Myers In instant that court did not abuse its dis- overpower police a hold tempted to officer imposed it a consecutive sen- while the officer cretion when handgun his away take Sentencing sta tence under Minnesota Guide- police driving was vehicle II.F.l in which the way for lines because the struggled officer Myers tion. was a crime crime committed constituted handgun, and the control of the vehicle person. a against struggle, the officer feared during the way injured. was Because his life and Affirmed. consti was committed in which this crime life, officer’s special danger tuted a district court did

we conclude a determining Myers committed

err in person a when obstructed against

crime

legal process. concluded that

Although we have not err in determin the district did Benjamin re the Matter of against a crime Myers committed WITSO, Respondent, G. determine whether we also must person, a imposing abused its discretion OVERBY, Petitioners, Mary al., C. et Ford, consecutive sentence. Appellants. already stat 229. we N.W.2d at As ed, a “crime constitutes offense No. C6-99-1618. Sentencing against person,” Minnesota Supreme Court Minnesota. II.F.l a district court permits Guidelines “[w]hen sentence impose consecutive June felony against a crime prior sentence for dis person expired has not been current and one or more charged against for a crime

felony convictions is n * case, there In the instant person, that at the time of sentenc dispute for his bank

ing, Myers’ sentence federal Fur felony yet expired.

robbery had

thermore, Myers dispute that his did not robbery felony conviction

federal bank As against person.

constituted a crime result, court found once district per- against a crime

Myers committed bodily or was ac- 1(2). penalty harm Only death substantial contemplate action provision companied by force or violence the threat does the statute pen- person by imposing affecting different subd. 2. thereof. Minn.Stat. caused a risk of or if the action created alties Hoffman, in a Hill, Larkin, two-year extra-mari- became involved Robinson John Ltd., frequent affair included tal sexual Bloomington, Daly Lindgren, & which period M.R.O. during contact appellants. and bio- was conceived that he is M.R.O.’s Daudelin, Berg, Walling & Anne Susan his claim with logical supports father. He P.A., Minneapolis, respondent. for asserting Overby an affidavit that he and relationship had an intimate over the time Overby and period alleged that admitted biological he father. that was M.R.O.’s Overby’s responsive affidavit denies OPINION that and two-year affair but admits she STRINGER, Justice. had sexual encounter that could Witso one (Witso) conception of M.R.O. have resulted Benjamin Witso Respondent Overby that she told denies rights with his custody and seeks visitation his child and contends that she M.R.O. was under petitioned and putative child M.R.O. (MPA)1 trying and her husband were Act for Parentage the Minnesota con- frequent and had sexual second child the child’s compel a court order period in which was during tact M.R.O. and Overby (Overby), Mary appellant Overby conceived. maintains James genetic testing undergo blood M.R.O. to father. Overby biological is M.R.O.’s is a presumed whether he to determine district biological father of M.R.O. The question issue the certified The but, on Ov- petition granted Witso’s statutory is interpretation one of and motion, erby’s important certified of question therefore a law this court following question as recast doubtful the G.L.H., novo. re reviews de of Welfare appeals: of by (Minn.2000). N.W.2d paternity Must a action dismissed bring a right proceeding The to estab standing petitioning lack of when of the totally creature lish sexu- requisite father shows adopted, the legislature MPA. In the MPA had test- al but contact modifications, Par some the Uniform might establish the ing, which Act, set laws comprehensive of entage that arises from standing basis for legal provide “substantive designed positive genetic test? regardless all children of equality for ques- appeals The court of answered * n * [in their parents marital status of negative and affirmed the dis- tion in the equal rights— of cluding] qua the sine non We affirm the court trict court. now person against of the the identification appeals. rights may whom these be asserted.”2 April gave birth to M.R.O. on Overby MPA that the father establishes the time of M.R.O.’s birth Over- 1998. At regardless exist Overby, and married to James was Minn. parents. the marital status therefore, statute, Overby is James (2000). §§ 257.53 Stat. biological father. M.R.O.’s 1(a) (2000). provides the exclusive The MPA however, action Overby he bases for alleges Note, Act, Prefatory Parentage 9B MPA is codified in Minn.Stat. 1. The Unif. (1987). (2000). U.L.A.289 §§ 257.51-.74 paternity. Morey Peppin, determine establishes likelihood that is the (Minn.1985). a prior N.W.2d Whether of the calculated with (50 person may bring probability per- no more than 0.5 cent), depends presumptions percent greater” action on which is 99 then Witso any, if paternity, apply. See Minn.Stat. to be the father. pa- presump- Nine Witso thus seeks to establish a himself, ternity set forth in if gen- are tion of success- ful, erally between those -in proceed divided based on district court to seek 1(a)- marriage, custody and visitation rights with M.R.O. (c) (2000), 257.541, provided § and those based on circum- in Minn.Stat. subd. 2(b) (2000). marriage, stances other than Whether ultimately Minn.Stat. he is l(d)-(i) (2000). 257.55, § Standing granted subd. to any rights such is not before us. bring a paternity respect action with to of appeals The court held that Wit- these presumptions is also based on stat- so is a party paternity to this action under ute.3 257.57, 2(1) (2000),4 § Minn.Stat. subd. Witso,

The issue here is whether as a party right compel Overby has to father who is not a genetic M.R.O. to submit to blood or 257.55, (2000)5 § father under section can bring testing under Minn.Stat. 257.62 mother, require Overby, action to by alleging by affidavit sufficient bases for M.R.O., child, requisite submit to sexual contact. Witso Ov genetic testing blood or erby, to establish wheth at The N.W.2d 621-23. court er expressed he is a father under ruling might concern that its 1(f) 257.55, already open subd. M.R.O. pater the door to casual of assertions 257.55, father. nity Section subd. but concluded that the affidavit re 1(f) provides genetic 257.62, that if quirement “blood or test- in section subdivision Standing paternity pro- Overby, 3. action is (Minn.App. 622-23 257.57, 2000). § vided in Minn.Stat. subds. 1-3 The correct in so far as a provides standing Subdivision 1 child, with biological mother or respect presumptions marriage, on based 1(a), (b), § under Minn.Stat. subd. or provides standing respect subdivision with (c) may genetic not use blood or tests to based on evidence other than declare the nonexistence of the fa marriage provides standing and subdivision 3 years passed ther’s after three have presumption. when there since the child's birth. But that section prevent would not father from 4. § Minnesota Statutes subd. 2 bringing competing an action to declare his provides: presumption paternity. * * * of child, The or man al father, leged alleging or himself to n n n 1(a) § 5.Minnesota Statutes action; may br;ng time for provides: purpose declaring the existence of relationship presumed the father and child public authority may, The court or 1, para under section shall, upon request require of a (e), (0, (d), (h), graph (g), or the nonexis child, mother, alleged father to submit to relationship tence father and alleged blood or tests. A mother or (d) presumed under clause that subdivi requesting tests shall file n * *. sion denying court an affidavit either appeals The states setting forth facts estab- 1(b) § time one limits the can lish the possibility reasonable there challenge use blood or tests to a mar- was, not, requisite or was sexual con- riage-based presumption to no more than parties. tact between the years three after the child is born. v.Witso fathers, 1(a) give putative ade- tive purpose court with provided the district already presumed contrast to those to be to determine whether quate discretion fathers under Minn.Stat. reasonably conclude factual basis exists (2000), action a cause of to establish was contact sufficient that there sexual presumption paternity. On the one at 621- to occur. 609 N.W.2d conception 1 protects marriage- hand subdivision presumptions by strictly limiting based Overbys that Witso does argue challenge the directly those who exis- “declar- phrase because the tence based the father and child existence of marriage on to the presumed” in section presumed, mother and man to be the that Witso have evi- requires child’s father virtue of Minn.Stat. establishing genetic tests dence of blood or (b) (c). 1(a), presumed biological that he is I.6 On other hand sub- pa- permitted to commence before he expands division of section effect, ar- Overbys ternity action. category eligible of those an ac- bringing from is foreclosed gue that Witso tion to the existence or nonexis- declare blood or tests an action to conduct tence of the father and child presumed a to determine he is whether marriage based on outside of a evidence test possess father because he does not necessarily biological mothers who are not a father. presumed that show he is results mothers, personal representative a we do not believe that disagree, We child, public charged sup- authorities posits such chicken- legislative scheme child, personal representative of the port were putative If a father or-egg dilemma. alleged or an parent or mother presumed be a father under required to alleged father if the mother or father has 257.55, 1(f), § the mother subd. Minn.Stat. alleged and men or died or is minor from could foreclose the father the father. alleging themselves prove paterni- the test results to obtaining 257.57, Importantly § Further, “alleg- or ty. “alleged” the terms 2 is limited to the class of subdivision providing 2 ing” in section Minn. bring an action under men who can have no may bring who an action would § 1. Putative fathers Stat. “pre- from the term meaning independent fa- themselves to be alleged alleging and sumed,” important clearly ignoring thers, necessarily fa- but not the terms statutory distinction between specifically autho- e.g., Witso—are thers — “alleged” “alleging” “presumed.” and or rized to action under Minn.Stat. paterni- 2 their terminology to establish The structure and legisla- ty.7 evidence a clear section 257.57 also the use of the pro- 7. The dissent contends that subd.

6. Minnesota Statutes father and son relation- word “the” in “the vides: ship” instead of section biological A child's statute refers “a” indicates the word child's father un- to be the preexisting relation- specific ato 1, para- section der "a” ship. rather than estab- The use "the” (c) (a), (b), action: graph kind, use nothing of as the lishes (a) declaring purpose of At time for the suggest multiple fathers. term “a” would the father and child rela- the existence of posi- support its also seeks tionship presumed The dissent under section 1, (b), (c); (a), in “declare suggesting that “declare” paragraph tion child rela- of the father and the existence (1980). 345, 666, father That an need also 200 Colo. 615 P.2d father is further from adopted, evident After the was relating who R. Appeals, citing Colorado Court of McG. J.W., who must be made a its parentage construed act to action.8 The distinguishes those compel presumed to be fathers from those alleging mother and child to to blood submit provides themselves to be fathers when it S.R.H., See re testing. a “man to be a father under 199, 202 (Colo.Ct.App.1998), P.2d rev’d on alleges or man who him- mm., S.L.S., grounds other sub N.A.H. v. may bring self to be the father” an action 354, (Colo.2000). 9 P.3d Five mem- to “declare” the of the existence father- of the Supreme agreed bers U.S. Court 257.60(3) relationship. might that a have “a con- brings If a putative pater- stitutionally protected interest in his rela- nity action and the mother denies the exis- tionship with a child whose mother is mar- tence of the father child relationship, to, with, cohabiting ried another man requires the section the court to make time of the child’s conception child a party to the action. Id. D., birth.” Michael H. v. Gerald 491 U.S. 136, 157, 109 S.Ct. opinions jurisdictions

Judicial from other (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring L.Ed.2d 91 held fathers children Brennan, J., judgment; with Mar- born to women married other men have Blackmun, JJ., shall protectable establishing dissenting; interests in their White, J., Brennan, Colorado, J., with paternity. leg- dissenting). even before it islatively adopted a Justice in presumption pater- judgment Stevens concurred the nity denying putative based on blood or the genetic testing opportunity simi- law, lar to supreme paternity only Minnesota the to establish his after con- held father was denied his cluding that under the California statute at right equal protection to when he was given issue the father “was a fair prevented proving from opportunity his to he child’s] show that is [the through genetic father, blood or tests under the natural that he developed rela- J.W., her, act. R. parentage state’s tionship McG. with and that her interests presumed Second, tionship nary (1961). under section in 257.55” 616. even assum- 257.57, imply the meaning, they must the terms differ in preexistence presumption necessarily mutually of fatherhood are not A exclusive. because subdivision 3 the uses word "deter- part determination be made as aof mine” rather than legal rights "declare” in "determine declaration of and status. Final- ly, existence of father and child "alleged/alleging” rela- unlike the terms respect tionship "presumed”, with to child who has the terms "declare” and "de- under section 257.55 termine” are used in contradistinction to * * § Parentage each in the other Act. meaning difference "de- between (2000) pro- Minnesota Statutes clare” and “determine” in this de context is certainly vides: support "The child shall be made a when- insufficient minimis— * * * First, posilion. ever: dissent's an action to declare exis- definitions of overlap making tence of father and terms distinction child is based dictionary brought by on or at to be the thesaurus tenuous alleges best. "Declare” can mean to "make under section or a evident man who of”; father, evidence "determine” can mean mother the child conclusively "to authoritatively.” fix denies the existence of the father child relationship.” Webster’s New Third International Dictio- have resulted the con- him visitation Witso could by granting would be served 135-36, there is no ception ques- at S.Ct. 2333. of M.R.O.—thus Id. rights.” alleges tion affidavit sufficient that Witso’s party alleging that a conclude We establishing requisite facts sexual contact. he is child’s father if again we that even Finally, note blood action under section show that Witso tests compel 2 to blood subdivision biological father under M.R.O.’s sub testing provided as 1(f), Overby is James at though division 1 even does biological father on also a based possess time the action is commenced Overby marriage time he is genetic tests establish blood or birth. Section M.R.O.’s father under section the child’s 1(f). requires weigh the court conflict- thus has presumption and “the presumptions, action. standing to on the which on the facts founded open does not conclusion Our weightier policy logic considerations the sancti challenges to door to unfettered controls.” Minn.Stat. parent- marriages, family unity and ty of (2000). Thus, though es- even By in the vesting relationships. father- tablish a judicial safeguard of a determi courts the hood, granted whether he should be custo- father has asserted nation that respect rights dial or visitation to deter grounds sufficient affidavit independent determina- is for an M.R.O. between mine that sexual contact occurred tion made district later could rea him and the child’s mother that of appeals court.10 We affirm concep have resulted child’s sonably question certified answer the provided tion in Minn.Stat. negative. (2000)9 protection additional Affirmed. pater claims of provided against frivolous nity is achieved between the and balance LANCASTER, (dissenting). Justice protec preservation interests fundamentally the has relationships familial and the inter Because tion of Parentage the Minnesota establish his misconstrued ests of the to event, contemplated Act a result not Overby and reached any In here has paternity. statute, I I As respectfully the dissent. that she had sexual contact with admitted The is overstated. originally enacted re- armed with an affidavit 9. Section 257.62 as quired or child to clearly the court to order mother to determine trial court has discretion genetic testing upon blood submit to statutory re- meets the whether affidavit request party Minn.Stat. of a to action. any quirement 1. in (1980). legisla- § subd. 1 In 1997 however, this event it is by1 ture add- amended something interpret a to mean differ- statute ing: alleged requesting "A mother or clearly legislature what intended ent than an affidavit the tests shall file with potential hypo- in a in to avoid a abuse order denying paternity and either set- the court. thetical circumstance not before ting reasonable forth facts that establish the above, es- statutory framework As noted was, not, possibility that there or was right to father’s obtain tablishes parties.” requisite sexual contact between statutory genetic testing subject to blood and 6, 29, 1997, 203, 21, May § Act ch. art. preconditions, preconditions are and those 1587, 1766. 1997 Minn. Laws met in the matter before the court. dissent's concern that the court's hold- rapist be abused 70 1(a) (2000), §

read another presumption pa- Minn.Stat. man’s marital Benjamin standing has no bring ternity. has no Because Witso marital cause of action to challenge favor, James Over- in presumption he has no stand- by’s presumption paternity. marital challenge under subdivision to James Furthermore, absent a in presumption Overby’s presumption. marital favor, bring Witso’s he cannot suit to de- very There clear policy is a reason for clare his own under Minn.Stat. on the ability challenge limitation § Neither Minn. presumption; family marital unit once (2000) (discussing Stat. 257.60 who established, very has been it is often in the to an action but not addressing best of the interests child to leave it undis- action) who standing an nor D., turbed. Michael H. See v. Gerald (2000) (allowing par- 124, 110, 2333, U.S. 109 S.Ct. 105 L.Ed.2d ty to request suit to blood (1989) (“[T]he family institution testing) changes fact that Witso does deeply in this history rooted Nation’s not have action to tradition.”); see Marriage also In re establish a father child relationship Ross, 591, 331, 245 Kan. P.2d between himself M.R.O. state, in a (recognizing, UPA “the Although only seeks allegedly ancient legitimacy declare the existence of his un- child born in wedlock of the strong- is one 2, der op- law”); est known to the B.H. posed challenging Overby’s presumption K.D., (N.D.1993) 368, of paternity under section subdivi- (“[PJarenting family unit are im- 1, necessary sion it is to consider both portant worthy of considerations constitu- clarify subdivisions to error if, protection.”). major- tional as the Even majority’s reading of the statute. Section ity implies, an unmarried man like Witso reads relevant could process have a due interest part: father-child relationship where there is al- A the child’s ready place, father in or a man presumed to child’s interest would arise when he has noth- father under section subdivision ing more than a biological relationship. (a), (b), (c) paragraph may bring H., See generally Michael 491 U.S. at

action: 136, 157-58, (Stevens, J., 109 S.Ct. 2333 Brennan, J., judgment; concurring (b) For purpose declaring JJ., Blackmun, Marshall and dissenting; nonexistence of the father child re- White, J., dissenting) (agreeing that a bio- lationship under section logical might father have a constitutional- 257.55, 1, (a), (b), subdivision paragraph ly-protected interest in relationship his (c) within [only certain time limita- with a child whose mother was married to tions]. another man at the time the child was born). by Rather, As majority, described “an biologi- unwed father’s l(a)-(c), not, pre- discusses the cal link to his child in does and of itself, sumptions of on paternity marriage. based him guarantee a constitutional stake Thus, 1, child, subdivision in relationship allows his with that [but] only “a man to such father” a link combined awith substantial under a presumption bring parent-child marital to relationship suit will do so.” 491 142-43, (Brennan, to declare the nonexistence of his own or U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 2333 added). Blackmun, JJ., (emphasis The use “the father J., dis- with Marshall Here, no instead of “a father relationship” contains and child senting). record demonstrating that the relationship” the existence and child indicates evidence relationship. specific referring preexist- statute is to parent-child” “substantial event, pro- never raised due any relationship. Witso Section argument 2, protection equal thereby requires cess or that Wit- subdivision engaged conjecture testing like have therefore so’s must today fruitless. to standing could have existed before father the existence of a and child declare 2, Minnesota Statutes relationship presumption. based on that standing bring also does not have that preexist- Because Witso does not own the existence of his to declare suit ing presumption, standing he has with M.R.O. relationship child father and instant suit.1 2 states: Subdivision n * * man The majority’s characterization of alleging himself alleged or reading creating plain interpretation * * * action: may bring father “chicken-or-egg only glosses dilemma” purpose of any statutory time for the significance over the of each sec- tion, of the father and declaring usurps the existence legislature’s right- also but presumed under relationship sec- setting policy. The ma- public ful role in (d), paragraph believe, tion jority wrong, failing to I * *. (e),(f),(g),or(h)* public policies acknowledge important legislative are Minnesota’s advanced us majority would have and the The North Dakota adaptation of UPA. 257.57, subdivision believe Supreme recognized policies those Court 2(1), Witso, “alleging himself gives man parent- interpreting North Dakota’s father,” standing to obtain blood to be statute, on the age which is also based a section subdi- tests establish recognizes paternity presump- UPA and 1(f), genetic testing presumption vision testing. B.H. v. tion based on interpreta- in himself. But this paternity K.D., Like the N.W.2d at 373-75. explicit language of sec- ignores tion case, B.H. KD. involved any present subdivision which allows tion favor but who action de- had no putative father a child who be the father of alleged to of “the father and child clare existence on a already had based under al- Id. at 370. The presumption. marital 257.55.” Minn.Stat. presumption of based say man’s another 1. This not to standing recognition would declare tests or never on that man’s blood another’s, his, paternity. Sec- existence also parentage. portions Other of the MPA gives tion stand- that a father will have confirm to declare the existence circum- bring a suit certain if are of his there nonexistence own (2000) ("The § 257.60 stances. * * * signed recogni- preexisting as a facts—such party whenever shall be made a child parentage that the tion of or evidence (3) the the existence of action to declare an his the child into home father received brought by a relationship is child father and as child— child out his held the section presumed to the father under presumed was a indicating father the alleges to be the father or a man who presump- * n without a putative father father. A (j0 nn case present The facts 0f bring in could also suit if he tion his favor those circumstances. one of seeking of were to declare the nonexistence leging father moved district court to who has no father under section (em- order tests in order to aid him in blood 257.55.” paternity. proving Interpreting his Id. added). phasis making While much of statutory provisions strikingly similar to “presumed” difference between and “al- court, this North those now before MPA, in leged” majority ignores Supreme Dakota Court held: the differences between “determine” and There must be genetic already tests in “declare” used within A section 257.57. satisfy existence which the statistical party an action to bringing “declare” the qualifications of the statute. Without existence of a father and child relationship results, requisite test an individual in to “make seeks like bring [the cannot father] officially” clearly preexisting known action, an disrupting such intrusive presumption. Roget’s factual Century 21st family, hoping established that tests or- (2d ed.1999). contrast, Thesaurus 201 In by the subsequently dered court will an action to “determine” the existence with standing proceed. vest him Too relationship suggests father child irreparable much damage will have oc- process of such rela- discovering whether meantime; family curred to the tionship; and thus a presumption, exists.2 potential great. abuse is too at 222 (listing syn- See id. “discover” as Id. at 375. “determine,” onym to but not “de- listing majority’s error decision is clare”). event, any In bring Witso can further shown action in neither because the first instance subd. 3 three permits Subdivision (under 2(1)) he has no an action to determine the existence a preexisting favor, his father and child relationship when the (under second instance child has no father. Under sub- 3) a presumed already father 3, putative division father would not at- exists.3 tempt ] “dedar the existence of the [e Although to inter- attempts father and child un- relationship pret sections 257.60 and 257.62 to support der section 257.55” as in subdivisions one two,. holding, its bring majority’s reading but would again “[a]n action to determine the of the Overbys accurately existence father and error. The point relationship with respect to a child out that the carefully constructed MPA highlighted 2. This distinction presumpLions in other favor Colorado, parentage states’ could, acts. In tor in facing no in another n * n stance, "[ajny interested circumstance, limitation without on time or bring purpose action at time for the genetic testing an action to obtain un determining the existence or nonexistence of problem der either subdivision. The with this relationship” and child under the is, course, interpretation it renders presumptions. nonmarital Colo.Rev.Slat. super either subdivision or subdivision 19-4-107, added). (emphasis subd. 2 despite fluous in this circumstance However, only practice assuming court’s well-settled [e ] an action to “deciar statutes are not extraneous. See re Paterni existence” nonexistence aof father-child J.A.V., (Minn.1996) ty presumptions. under the marital ("We guided by principle are [statutes Id., l(a)-(b) (2000). governing parent relationship] and child applied internally must be in a manner that is majority’s analysis 3. Another Daw in the * * n assuming it finds no difference consistent that each stat between section 2(1), 3; provision utory purpose.”). and subd. has a distinction, putative Ignoring majority a the when in section 257.57 sets forth proper Witso a concludes that because suit; then in standing has father of party reading under its section may- father putative when a 257.60 section 2(1), genetic seek can test- suit; and, finally, in to a party made be ing 257.62. Section 257.62 under section party to a suit 257.62 when a pertinent part: states “The or testing. The court looks to genetic seek public authority may, upon request and of construing as a whole in statutory sections child, mother, shall, require a the party See Lenz Coon part of the statute. each to submit to alleged father blood Dist., 11-12, Minn. Creek Watershed (em- 1(a) Minn. tests.” Stat (noting that 217-18 153 N.W.2d added). I phasis agree majority with the statute, construing provision genet- to a only party that suit seek the words the beyond should look courts tests, is a agree ic but I cannot that Witso whole); section as a provision and look to the proper party to instant suit. Because J.A.V., (stating at In re standing did not have under section and termi- adoption, parentage, that and 257.57 to this suit because he parental statutes involve rights nation of party to a suit has not been made another, interpreted must thread and be 257.62 does brought common to seek right blood conjunction with one anoth- consistently testing. er). which Minnesota Statutes that “each man

states Furthermore, denies each man under section for abuse holding potential father its creates the father, the door to unfettered chal- “open[ing] shall be alleged to be marriage” lenges sanctity to the independently does not en- parties,” made paterni- asserts baseless intrusive single-handedly fathers able its ty challenges will not follow from hold- Rather, it family relationship. disrupt the ing because section conjunction with section be read must request- father who is requires limits situations which which tests to file an affidavit in his any .presumptions a man without with the regarding sexual contact facts bring a suit favor has Contrary relevant time. mother Taking sections 257.57 place. in the first assertions, majority’s section 257.62 puta- clear that a together, it is safeguard provide adequate does not Witso, father, could like tive abuse of against very potential real for having without section 257.60 suit under holding. Any man with affida- today’s in his fa- any presumptions claiming he had sexual contact vit vor,4 puta- but it does not follow that during period the mother con- automatically standing to tive may, opinion, ception today’s after intrude subd. 2. As bring suit under family unit. Minn. upon an established written, MPA must 1(a) (“A mother or Stat. bringing satisfy certain conditions before requesting tests shall alleged prerequisites alleg- becom- an affidavit either suit are file with forth setting denying paternity to a suit. ing party that, otherwise, biologi- upon determination not be ensure 4. The statute could course; alleged relationship, responsibilities to be father could of father- if men cal parties, could or child ever not be mother were hood enforced. prove alleged father's seek possibil- facts that the reasonable establish was, not,

ity requi- there or was Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of parties.”). site sexual contact between majority Although emphasizes that in Mary Overby case admitted sexual Appellant. RHODES, Daniel Thomas contact, it is irrelevant under whether mother admits or de- No. C3-98-1839.

nies the Id. contact. Court Supreme of Minnesota. if

Finally, even mother admits contact, majority’s reading, sexual tak- June conclusion, en to its logical would raped who the mother obtain blood tests and therefore assert his the resulting child.5 See 1(a). If leg-

islature had meant for this cre- statute to result,

ate such an intrusive and extreme

surely it so explicitly. would have stated J.A.V., (stat-

See re that, legislature if the had intended to

radically change parent-child relation- surely

ship, “it done would have so in than

language greater clarity we find

here.”). H., generally See Michael

U.S. at 124 (recogniz- n. S.Ct. 2333 problems the grave giving a rapist

a liberty establishing interest a father with a child poten-

tially begotten by rape). I Because cannot legislature

see that intended result arrives,

at which I must dis-

sent.

BLATZ, (dissenting). Chief Justice join

I in the dissent of Justice Lancas-

ter. ANDERSON, A.

RUSSELL Justice

(dissenting). join

I in the dissent of Justice Lancas-

ter. point argument.

5. This was conceded at oral

Case Details

Case Name: Witso v. Overby

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jun 7, 2001

Citation: 627 N.W.2d 63

Docket Number: C6-99-1618

Court Abbreviation: Minn.