Legal Opinion · Dissent
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., Parents
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 10, 2014No. A13-1820Published
1DissentPage, Justice
I respectfully dissent. I do so because I conclude that the presumption of palpable unfitness in Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2012), does not survive strict scrutiny.
R.D.L. faced a termination of parental rights hearing with respect to her four oldest children because she was engaging in illegal activity in their presence and failed to comply with her case plan. In re Welfare of Children of R.D.L., Nos. 27-JV-11-8351, 27-JV-12-4240, Order at 2 (Henn. Cnty.Dist.Ct. filed Aug. 28, 2012). Before the hearing, R.D.L. gave birth to another child. Hennepin County proposed that it would not…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. WilliamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Vance v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Fullilove v. KlutznickSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Orr v. OrrSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.