In re Holmberg

No. IP 98-0342-C H/G (Minn. Sup. Ct. Jan. 28, 1999). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52225

Description

Minnesota’s Administrative Process for Child Support Found Unconstitutional

Abstract

Affirming, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state administrative child support process was unconstitutional because it violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. The process had jurisdiction over all cases to obtain, modify, or enforce child and medical support orders or paternity orders if the custodial parent received or either parent had applied for public assistance. Three child support obligors filed postjudment petitions for review of administrative orders awarding child support. In separate decisions the trial court entered judgments against them, and obligors appealed. Consolidating the cases, the state appellate court ruled that the process violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. On appeal, the state supreme court held that the administrative process violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by (1) infringing on the district court’s original jurisdiction; (2) creating a tribunal which is not inferior to the district court as mandated by the state constitution; and (3) permitting child support officers to practice law. Noting that family-dissolution remedies, arising in equity, were within the district court’s original jurisdiction, the court determined that the legislature’s delegation of this area of the law called for close scrutiny. The court found that the administrative process not only gave administrative law judges powers which inherently belonged to the district court but also placed them on par with district courts in deciding child support cases. In one respect, administrative law judges were made superior; they were empowered to modify child support orders granted by district courts. By granting the power to practice law to child support officers, who are not subject to the court’s disciplinary authority, the legislature further removed the administrative process from the judiciary’s supervision. The court did not reach the issues of possible equal protection and procedural due process violations.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Amicus curiae Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance represented by Jayne Barnard McCoy, Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, 430 First Ave. N, Minneapolis, MN 55401; 612.332.1441.
Docket Date
1999-01-28 00:00:00+00:00