Please visit my author page at amazon.com
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.F.. MN Adoption
The three African-American children in this Hennepin County case were removed from their mother's care after a sibling was abused and placed with foster parents who were a "married, heterosexual, African American, Baptist couple." The social worker assigned to the case was later found by the court to be not credible, "as a result of the personal conflict she had" with the couple. At some point, the social worker sought to have the couple's license to be foster parents revoked, but a state administrative law judge found that the charges were not supported by probable cause. The district court later held that the charges were based on the social worker's misrepresentations.
The social worker eventually placed the children with another set of foster parents, "a married, female, same-sex, Caucasian, Lutheran couple." Upon the termination of the mother's parental rights, the county sought to place the children with the second couple for adoption. The first couple objected, and the case was heard by the district court.
The district court, in an 82 page order and 15 page memorandum, agreed with the first set of foster parents, and placed the children with them. The second set of foster parents appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, whose opinion begins with a meticulous recitation of the facts of the case.
The lower court had considered as one factor the race of the two sets of parents. It noted that the first couple had already shown their ability to help the children understand what it means to be a black child growing up. While the court conceded that the second set of parents had attempted to expose the children to their culture, it held that they had not made a sufficient effort to give the children access to communities that share their race and culture.
The second couple cited law to the effect that race shouldn't be considered in relation to foster parents. But the appeals court held that these authorities hold only that placement should not be delayed based upon race. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that it was proper to consider race as a factor in a child's identity, which is informed by racial and ethnic heritage.
Minnesota statutes refer to "cultural needs" in adoption cases, but the second couple argued that this should not include race. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that it was appropriate to consider a racial characteristic as having cultural implications, and that the first couple was in a better position to teach the children about that aspect of their culture.
Judge Reyes penned a concurring opinion which argued that the majority had ruled incorrrectly on the importance of race.
No. A19-2099 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2020).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com