The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied my petition for further review, underscoring the ongoing struggle for parental rights in the face of systemic biases and government intrusion into the family. Nearly three months ago, I sought the court’s intervention after the appellate court upheld a lower court ruling that stripped me of custody of my three daughters and denied me parenting time with my oldest child, all without any factual findings of harm. Referee Jason Hutchison’s ruling was unjust and based on fabricated evidence, raising serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process.
In my initial appeal, I posed a critical constitutional question: Can a district court deny a parent’s right to custody and parenting time without establishing parental unfitness? Unfortunately, Judge Jon Schmidt of the appellate court sidestepped this pivotal issue, leading me to escalate the matter to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court had a statutory obligation to decide on my petition within 60 days, a deadline they exceeded by more than a month.
The denial of my petition is particularly disheartening in light of established legal precedents. The U.S. Supreme Court has long maintained that as long as a parent is fit, there is no justification for state intervention in family matters. This principle emphasizes that a fit parent is presumed to act in their child’s best interest. However, states often disregard this presumption, positioning themselves as arbiters of what constitutes a child’s best interest.
In 2020, a custody case escalated through the North Carolina courts, Routten v. Routten. A mother lost custody and visitation with her child without any finding of unfitness. The court of appeals overturned the order. However, the NC Supreme Court rejected the court of appeals rationale and reinstated the lower court’s ruling. The court stated that “no constitutionally based presumption favors custody for one parent or the other nor bars the award of full custody to one parent without visitation to the other.” (italics added) The essence of the decision allows any family court the freedom to remove a parent’s rights at its own discretion…an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS power.
Mother rightfully requested review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Given a unique opportunity to settle the question and clarify a parent’s constitutional rights in dissolutions with children, the nation’s highest court did nothing. So, the question remains open, and hundreds of thousands of families suffer as a result.
This situation highlights a broader issue: the need for constitutional amendments at the state level to protect parental rights explicitly. Until such changes are made or until the U.S. Supreme Court addresses these state actions as unconstitutional, parents will continue to face challenges in asserting their rights against an overreaching state apparatus.
As I reflect on this journey, I remain steadfast in my belief that change at the state level remains the only path forward. The fight for recognition of parental rights must happen through state amendments.
PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THE PETITION TO STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF FAMILIES.
