No. 19-127

Anmarie Calgaro v. St. Louis County, Minnesota, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2)Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: due-process due-process-clause emancipation local-government medical-providers minor-children parental-rights welfare-payments
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Privacy EducationPrivacy
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether parents' Due Process Clause rights apply to local governments and medical providers ending parental rights, responsibilities or duties over their minor children's welfare, educational, and medical care decisions without a court order of emancipation

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases on whether parental Due Process Clause rights apply to local governments and medical providers ending parental control over their minor children. Minnesota relies on its minor children to file common law petitions to emancipate from their parents—which can lead to temporary, partial, conditional, or full emancipation. But, by statutes, custom and practice, Minnesota’s counties, school districts, and medical providers end parental control over minors, in varying degrees, upon request by the minor, but without a judicial order of emancipation, without parental waiver, and without parental notice. Neither Minnesota’s statutes nor common law authorize parents to file court actions to restore their parental rights. 1. Whether parents’ Due Process Clause rights apply to local governments and medical providers ending parental rights, responsibilities or duties over their minor children’s welfare, educational, and medical care decisions without a court order of emancipation. 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming dismissal of Calgaro’s Due Process Clause claims for damages and equitable relief because, without a court order of emancipation, without parental waiver, and without parental notice: (A) Minnesota Statutes § 256D.05, subd. 1(a)(9), authorizes a county to deem a li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued minor “emancipated” to receive welfare payments; (B) Minnesota Statutes § 144.341 authorizes medical providers to void parental rights, responsibilities, and duties to a minor child, if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing personal financial affairs; and (C) a school district in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent for more than two years from involvement in the child’s education after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated.

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-09-06
Reply of petitioner Anmarie Calgaro filed.
2019-08-26
Brief of respondent Park Nicollet Health Services in opposition filed.
2019-08-23
Brief of respondent St.Louis County School District and Michael Johnson in opposition filed.
2019-08-23
Brief amici curiae of The Association for Government Accountability and Child Protection League filed.
2019-08-22
Brief of respondent Fairview Health Services in opposition filed.
2019-08-21
Brief of respondent St. Louis County, Minnesota in opposition filed.
2019-08-19
Waiver of right of respondent E.J.K. to respond filed.
2019-08-16
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.
2019-07-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 26, 2019)
2019-06-21
Application (18A1353) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until July 24, 2019.
2019-06-19
Application (18A1353) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 23, 2019 to August 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.

Attorneys

Anmarie Calgaro
Erick G. KaardalMohrman, Kaardal & Erickson P.A., Petitioner
Erick G. KaardalMohrman, Kaardal & Erickson P.A., Petitioner
E.J.K.
Christopher F. StollNational Center for Lesbian Rights, Respondent
Christopher F. StollNational Center for Lesbian Rights, Respondent
Fairview Health Services
Paul Curtis PetersonLind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Respondent
Paul Curtis PetersonLind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Respondent
Foundation for Moral Law
John Allen EidsmoeFoundation for Moral Law, Amicus
John Allen EidsmoeFoundation for Moral Law, Amicus
Park Nicollet Health Services
David M. WilkLarson King LLP, Respondent
David M. WilkLarson King LLP, Respondent
St. Louis County, Minnesota
Mark Steven RubinSt. Louis County Attorney, Respondent
Mark Steven RubinSt. Louis County Attorney, Respondent
St.Louis County School District and Michael Johnson
Trevor Scott HelmersRupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., Respondent
Trevor Scott HelmersRupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., Respondent
The Association for Government Accountability and Child Protection League
Lee Aubry Hutton IIIHutton Kluz Evans, Amicus
Lee Aubry Hutton IIIHutton Kluz Evans, Amicus