Soohoo v. Johnson

731 N.W.2d 815 (2007)

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

P and D who lived together in a same-sex relationship and jointly owned a house in Minneapolis, ended a 22-year relationship in the fall of 2003. D adopted two children from China. P did not adopt either of the children, but the record indicates that P and D co-parented the children, recognized themselves as a family unit with two mothers, and represented themselves to others as such. P took maternity leave to care for both children upon their arrival in the United States. P also participated in the selection of child-care providers and schools for the children and shared in the daily parenting responsibilities, including dropping off and picking up the children from daycare, helping with school projects and homework, preparing meals for the family, taking the children to doctors appointments coordinating extracurricular activities and play dates, providing the sole care while Johnson was away on business, and taking the children to California to visit P's extended family, all without apparent objection by D. The children referred to P as 'mommy,' and referred to P's parents as their grandparents. D listed P as mother number two and listed the last name of one of the children as Johnson-SooHoo. P attended the children's parent-teacher conferences with D, during which both women signed off on the teacher's goal setting report as 'Parent/Guardian.' As a result of a domestic incident, the district court order against P barred P from residing at or visiting the home she owned with D. During the five or six months after the court issued the reciprocal orders for protection, P was allowed to see the children for a total of only 48 hours. P filed a petition seeking sole physical and legal custody of the children. In the alternative, she sought visitation. The statute allows for third-party visitation if that party resided in the household with a child for two or more years, but no longer resides in the home. The court denied P's custody petition but found it was in the best interests of the children for P to have visitation. D appealed, and the judgment was affirmed. D again appealed claiming the statute was unconstitutional.