Dr. H: What were the ages of your children?
Ms. K: They were one and two when it began. When I lost my parental rights, they were two, three, and four years old. And I had given birth to another one and they came and took him when he was six months old. When they discovered him they pulled him into the termination, which I felt was kind of illegal and I wish I could’ve done something because I was in partial compliance by the time they did it; and I wish I had pursued that.
Considered one of the harshest civil consequences in the United States justice system, a termination of parental rights (TPR) is often called “the civil death penalty” due to its severity and permanence. Despite the severity of TPR, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) conditions states’ receipt of certain federal funding on adoption of the following provision: when a parent has had their parental rights “involuntarily terminated,” the State is not obligated to pursue reunification with any subsequent child of that parent that comes under court jurisdiction, and the Court must consider alternative permanent placement for said child. Minnesota complies with this part of ASFA primarily through Minnesota Statutes section 260C.301 subdivision 1(b)(4), which will be referred to hereinafter as the presumption statute.[5] Under Minnesota’s presumption statute, a previous involuntary termination of parental rights creates a presumption that a parent is “palpably unfit” and serves as a statutory ground for subsequent termination of parental rights. In In re Welfare of the Child of R.D.L., the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether the presumption statute meets the requirements of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution. The Court decided the statute was constitutional.
This Note argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in R.D.L. was incorrect. First, to understand the court’s error, this Note provides a description of systemic dysfunctions in the child protection system. Then, to provide context, the history of relevant case law and Minnesota child protection procedure is detailed. Next, this Note walks through the facts of R.D.L., the court’s decision, and Justice Page’s dissent. After that, the Note explores the full effects of involuntary termination. The Note analyzes the court’s opinion and its aftermath. Finally, the Note presents a summation and recommended action to address the court’s error.