Court Opinion

ID: 9715332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:00:41.41127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:30.081325
License: Public Domain

HARTEN, Judge
(dissenting)
I dissent on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the majority misinterprets Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(h) and misapplies Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.04 in accepting the certified question; substantively, the majority misconstrues Minn.Stat. §§ 257.57, .60, and .62 and ignores controlling precedent in answering that question.
Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(h) provides that:
If the trial court certifies that the question presented is important and doubtful [an appeal may be taken] from an order which denies a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or from an order which denies a motion for summary judgment.
There is no such order here. The majority contends that this is an appeal “from an order which denies a motion to dismiss,” but the motion to dismiss here was brought for lack of standing, not, as the rule requires, “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The majority’s interpretation impermissibly broadens the rule.
Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.04 provides for appellate review of “any other matter as the interests of justice may require.” In “the interests of justice,” the majority accepts the certified question in order to give “[appellants] their day in this appellate court.” But in giving appellants their day in court, the majority compels them to risk destruction of a belief integral to their family structure, i.e., the paternity of James Overby. As the majority notes, the district court will still be free to adjudicate him the legal father, but even an adjudication will be powerless to restore that belief. The majority misapplies Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.04; the interests of justice do not require such a result.
The majority cites various provisions of the parentage act to contend that the legislature has not “left the [certified] question unanswered” because parties to a paternity action are entitled to blood tests and putative fathers are parties to paternity actions. But the majority’s construction depends on transposing language included in one provision to another provision.
Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subd. 2, provides that when paternity is presumed under some of the statutory criteria, “a man alleged or alleging himself to be the father” may bring an action to establish paternity. (Emphasis added.) Minn.Stat. § 257.60 does not include the emphasized language; it provides that parties to a paternity action shall include “each man alleged to be the biological father.” Had the legislature wanted to do so, it could have repeated the “alleged or alleging himself to be” language that the majority’s interpretation requires. But “a reviewing court ‘cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.’ ” Brandt v. Hallwood Management Co., 560 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn.App.1997) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997). Moreover, “[w]here a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Id. (quotation omitted). The majority’s “reasonable reading” thus violates a canon of construction.
Finally, this court has already resolved the certified question. R.B. v. C.S., 536 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn.App.1995), holds that “[i]n Minnesota, a putative father must be a presumed father in order to bring a paternity action under the parentage act.” In R.B., the child was born out of wedlock; the mother had never married either the presumed or the putative father, and the presumption was based on a signed stipulation of paternity approved by the court and entered as an adjudication. Id. at 636.
*625The majority attempts to distinguish R.B. on the ground that there, the paternity of the presumed father had been adjudicated. But here, there was no reason for an adjudication of James Overby’s paternity: he and the child’s mother are and have been married since before the child’s conception, and that marriage is the basis for the presumption of his paternity. See Minn.Stat. § 257.55, subd. 1(a) (1998) (marriage to a child’s mother establishes presumption of paternity).
Allowing a putative father standing to oppose a married presumed father, as here, but denying a putative father standing to oppose an adjudicated presumed father, as per R.B., introduces an unwarranted and artificial distinction into the parentage law. That distinction means that, until a child of married parents is three, any man who provides an affidavit stating he had sexual relations with the mother around the time of conception will be legally entitled to genetic proof that the child is or is not his, regardless of the mother’s or the child’s interests. The potential for ensuing familial discord is incalculable.