Court of Appeals orders paternity test in adoption case

Listen to this article

A Minnesota man wanted to learn whether he was the biological father of a girl after she was surrendered, but the district court denied his petition to order genetic testing. Finding that the refusal was an abuse of discretion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals sent the case back with instructions to order the test.

Putative father R.M.M. was in a romantic relationship with a woman, J.R.S., who became pregnant. Their relationship ended before she gave birth to a girl. Before the birth, R.M.M. registered as a putative father in the Minnesota Fathers’ Adoption Registry. On June 14, 2024, the registry notified R.M.M. that the mother intended to place the child for adoption in a proceeding in Dakota County. It instructed him to respond by admitting or denying paternity and stating whether he would exercise his parental rights or agree to the adoption.

The mother gave birth to the child in Brainerd on June 26, 2024, and surrendered the child to the hospital two days later. Crow Wing County Community Services took custody and filed two petitions in the Crow Wing County juvenile court division on July 1, 2024. One was a Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petition, and the other was an expedited petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court division heard both petitions on July 2 and, eight days after the child’s birth, granted the petitions, terminating the parental rights of all known and unknown parents.

R.M.M. timely responded to the Fathers’ Adoption Registry notice, acknowledging he was the child’s father, stating that he intended to exercise his parental rights, and objecting to the adoption. The registry notice required him to initiate a paternity action within 30 days if he intended to assert his rights. He filed a paternity action in district court, requesting genetic testing and seeking sole legal and physical custody.

Despite surrendering the child, J.R.S. filed her answer, stating she had no physical or legal custody. While she acknowledged that she had sexual relations with R.M.M., she denied that he was the father.

R.M.M. filed motions to intervene and compel genetic testing in the juvenile court division permanency case and to vacate the termination order. The parties agreed to stay the paternity case in district court until the juvenile court issued its decision. The juvenile court denied R.M.M.’s motions, finding them unripe because genetic testing had not been completed, but noted that paternity could be substantiated in the paternity case. Reconsideration was denied.

R.M.M. then asked the district court to move the paternity case to open status and schedule a hearing on genetic testing. The district court denied his motion and granted the county’s motion to dismiss.

He appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that genetic testing was necessary. While the county argued that R.M.M. lacked standing to bring a paternity action because he did not allege the child had no presumptive father and because his parental rights were terminated before filing, the court disagreed. It noted that the Minnesota Parentage Act allows a putative father to compel genetic testing even without a presumed-father status. R.M.M. pleaded facts showing a sexual relationship with J.R.S., his registration with the Fathers’ Adoption Registry, and his intent to claim parental rights. The court found that this established sufficient standing to pursue paternity.

The court found that the district court abused its discretion by denying R.M.M.’s motion to compel genetic testing and dismissing his parentage case. It found that the district court improperly relied on outcomes in the separate juvenile permanency case, which was not before it. Under Minnesota law, a putative father who files an affidavit showing a reasonable possibility of sexual contact with the child’s mother is entitled to genetic testing. R.M.M. submitted such an affidavit, alleging sexual contact with mother that resulted in the child’s birth.

When it refused to order testing, the district court misapplied the law and failed to resolve the issue based on the facts of the record, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined. Finding that the district court erred by relying on the potential outcome of the juvenile court permanency case and misapplying the law in denying R.M.M.’s request for genetic testing, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to order the testing and proceed based on its results.