Heidbreder v. Carton

645 N.W.2d 355 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Carton (D), P's girlfriend, informed him that she was pregnant and due in August 2000. D was 18 years old and had graduated from high school in the spring of 1999. P was a year older. D expressed some interest in exploring adoption, but P told her he was 'absolutely against' adoption and that he believed adoption was 'not right.' D allegedly told P she would 'never ever' put his child up for adoption. P and D rented an apartment together in Fort Madison. D paid the security deposit and the rent for the month of June. P occasionally paid for meals for D, but he never provided financial support to P for pregnancy-related expenses. They argued with each other and D decided to leave P. D eventually moved to New Beginnings, a home for pregnant teenage girls in St. Cloud. D did not tell P where she was, and she instructed her family and friends not to give P any information about her location. D's family and friends refused to tell him where D was. P met with an attorney in Iowa to discuss visitation and child support. Adoption was not discussed because P did not believe D would do that. P claims that the attorney told him that his child could not be adopted in Iowa without his consent. No other actions were taken. D decided to give her child up for adoption. D selected M.J.P., and M.B.P. D expressed concern that P would stop the adoption. D was informed that under Minnesota law, she was not required to name P on the birth certificate and that if he was not named on the birth certificate, P could not prevent the adoption unless he registered with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry no later than 30 days after the birth of the child. K.M.C. was born on August 12, 2000. D did not identify a father. K.M.C. left the hospital with the adoptive parents on August 14, 2000, and they filed a petition to adopt K.M.C. in Washington County District Court. On September 12, 2000, 31 days after K.M.C.'s birth, P learned from a third party that D was in Minnesota, had given birth to a girl and had put her up for adoption. The same day, P found a website with information on the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry and completed and mailed the necessary forms. The forms were postmarked September 12, 2000, 31 days after K.M.C.'s birth. P commenced a paternity action. D counterclaimed for custody in the event P's attempt to block the adoption of K.M.C. was successful. The adoptive parents moved to dismiss P's paternity action on the grounds that Minn. Stat. § 259.52, subd. 8, barred P from asserting parental rights to K.M.C. because he failed to register with the Minnesota Fathers' Adoption Registry before K.M.C. was more than 30 days old and he was not otherwise entitled to notice of an adoption petition under Minn. Stat. § 259.49, subd. 1(b) (2000). P argued that his failure to timely file should be excused because D engaged in fraud by failing to disclose her location. He also challenged the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. §§ 259.49 and 259.52. The district court granted Ds' summary judgment because P failed to timely register. The court concluded that because P did not take steps to protect his rights in any of the states where P could have been, there was not clear and convincing evidence that it was 'not possible' for P to timely register or that his failure to register was 'through no fault of his own.' The court held that D had no duty to disclose her location to him. This appeal resulted.