Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that Former Life Partner Entitled to Visitation Rights as a Co-Parent.

Student Name: Robyn Thielman Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11186880552874682162&q=child+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,24 Title: Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that Former Life Partner Entitled to Visitation Rights as a Co-Parent. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 NW 2d 815 - Minn: Supreme Court 2007 that the petitioner Nancy SooHoo, who was considered to be mother #2 to the adoptive children of her former partner, Marilyn Johnson, respondent in this case, was entitled to visitation rights with the minor children pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006), which gives permission to the court to grant reasonable to a person with whom the children have lived with for a period of at least two (2) years. The Respondent, Johnson, challenged the constitutionality of Section 257C.08, subd. 4. The petitioner and second (2nd) mother of two minor children petitioned the district court for visitation rights to the children. The children’s adoptive mother challenged the court’s visitation schedule and the granting of any visitation to the petitioner, as well as the court’s visitation schedule and their order that she attend therapy for her anxiety and tension issues relating to the children. The petitioner, Nancy SooHoo, co-parented the children with the respondent for several years. SooHoo and Johnson recognized themselves as a family unit with two mothers and represented themselves as such to others. SooHoo was significantly involved in the children’s lives, to the extent that she took maternity leave from her job to care for both children upon their arrival in the United States from China. SooHoo was also involved in the selection of child-care providers and schools for the children and shared equally in the daily parenting responsibilities, including dropping off and picking up the children from daycare, helping with homework and school projects, preparing family meals, bringing the children to doctor appointments, being the sole provider for the children when Johnson was away on business, and even took the children to California to visit SooHoo’s extended family, all without objection by Johnson. SooHoo was also named by Johnson as the children’s 2nd mother at their schools and SooHoo was also an active participant in their school conferences. The record further reflects that the children referred to SooHoo as “mommy” and called SooHoo’s parents their grandparents The court ultimately awarded visitation to SooHoo, which included, in addition to weekly visitation, a holiday visitation schedule dividing the major holidays between SooHoo and Johnson, as well as an extended visitation period over the summer months. of one weekend per month to child's maternal grandfather was reasonable. The child saw the grandfather only eight hours per month prior to mother's death. The child was barely two years old at the time of mother's death and was currently seven years old. The visitation awarded to the grandfather was comparable to visitation recommended by guardian ad litem. In awarding this visiation, the Court concluded that Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4. is constitutional both on its face and as applied by the District Court. The court ruled that SooHoo who had a significant relationship with the children , was entitled to visitation of the children and concluded that a parent's fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of his or her children carries an assumption with it that the parent is acting in the best interest of the children. Labels for the post: child visitation, best interests of the children