SooHoo v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007 · Family Law

Family LawThird-Party VisitationSubstantive Due Processfit parentthird-party visitationin loco parentisclear and convincing evidencestrict scrutiny

Facts

Johnson and SooHoo had a 22-year relationship, lived together, and jointly raised Johnson's two adopted children. Although SooHoo never adopted the children, the record showed that she co-parented them, was identified as a second mother, and the children called her "mommy." After the relationship ended and reciprocal orders for protection were entered, SooHoo's contact with the children became very limited. SooHoo sought custody or, alternatively, visitation, and the district court ultimately denied custody but granted visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4.

Issue

Whether Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4, which permits visitation to a person with whom a child resided for at least two years and who has a parent-child relationship with the child, violates a fit parent's substantive due process rights on its face or as applied. Also, whether the district court abused its discretion in the amount of visitation awarded, in awarding visitation without a separate evidentiary hearing on visitation, and in ordering Johnson to attend counseling.

Rule

Because a fit parent's right to the care, custody, and control of a child is a fundamental right, a third-party visitation statute is reviewed under strict scrutiny. Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 is constitutional when construed to require the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner resided with the child for two or more years, established emotional ties creating a parent-child relationship, visitation is in the child's best interests, and visitation will not interfere with the custodial parent's relationship with the child; the statute must give special weight to the fit parent's wishes and cannot presume visitation in the petitioner's favor. A court may not order counseling for a parent absent a factual finding that the counseling is in the children's best interests rather than merely the parent's.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In St. Paul, Leah Morton is the sole legal parent of 9-year-old Ava. Jordan Pike, Leah's former live-in partner, petitions under a state statute allowing visitation to a person who lived with a child for at least two years and formed a parent-child relationship; Leah argues the statute burdens her fundamental right to direct Ava's upbringing.

What standard of constitutional review should a court apply to Leah's substantive due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that a fit parent's right to the care, custody, and control of a child is a fundamental right, so a third-party visitation statute burdening that right is reviewed under strict scrutiny. The court rejected a lesser standard and analyzed whether the statute served a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored. (Derived from SooHoo v. Johnson (n.d.).)