In re J.M.M. ex rel. Minors for a Change Name, A17-1730

937 N.W.2d 743

In the MATTER OF the Application of J.M.M. O/B/O MINORS FOR A CHANGE OF NAME

A17-1730

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: January 22, 2020

OPINION

LILLEHAUG, Justice.

This case requires us to interpret the notice provision found in Minn. Stat. § 259.10 (2018), relating to name-change applications on behalf of minors. Because the language of the notice provision is ambiguous, we construe it in light of its legislative history and in harmony with statutes relating to birth registration and parentage. We hold that the phrase "both parents" refers to legal parents: persons either listed on the minor’s birth certificate or adjudicated as parents through the legal system. Here, appellant J.M.M. is the only parent listed on her children’s birth certificates, and no one has been adjudicated as their father. The district court and the court of appeals concluded that she nonetheless had to notify the children’s biological father of the name change that she requested. We disagree. She is the legal parent with authority to apply to change her children’s names. Therefore, we reverse.

FACTS

Appellant J.M.M. is the mother of three children: M.G., born in 2009; D.J.G., born in 2010; and G.G., born in 2013. J.M.M. was not married when any of the children were conceived or born, and no one has ever been adjudicated as the legal father of any of the children. J.M.M. selected the children’s names shown on their birth certificates.

On October 16, 2015, J.M.M. filed name-change petitions for all three children in Hennepin County District Court. On the applications, in response to the question "[t]he name and last known address of the non-custodial parent is," J.M.M. wrote "no other legal parent." In response to the question:

The non-applicant parent’s name is: (Check all that apply)

? The name on the birth certificate

? The person acting as the non-applicant parent

? The biological parent

? The non-applicant parent is not known and his/her/their name(s) is/are not shown on the birth certificate

J.M.M. checked the final box, indicating that the non-applicant parent was "not known" and his name was not shown on the birth certificate. During a subsequent phone call with a Hennepin County law clerk, J.M.M. said that she knew the identity of the biological father but did not know his current whereabouts.

On November 30, 2015, the district court sent a letter to J.M.M. scheduling a hearing on the name-change applications. The court noted that the statute governing name-change applications for minors, Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1, required that "both parents hav[e] notice of the pending of the application for change of name." Because J.M.M. had acknowledged to the clerk that she knew the identity of the biological father, the court stated that the petitions would be dismissed if J.M.M. failed to provide proof that he had been served notice of the hearing.

On December 23, 2015, counsel for J.M.M. submitted a letter to the district court asserting that notice was not required under section 259.10 because the children did not have another legal parent. Counsel also stated that, if the court disagreed on who is entitled to notice, a separate provision in subdivision 1 of the statute applied—that notice is only due "whenever practicable, as determined by the court." Counsel argued that threats of violence, detailed in an affidavit from J.M.M. attached to the letter, demonstrated that notice was impracticable.¹ On February 4, 2016, counsel for J.M.M. submitted an additional brief, which reiterated J.M.M.’s arguments.

On February 23, 2016, the district court dismissed the petitions without prejudice. The district court reasoned that the phrase "both parents" in Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1 "plainly and unambiguously refers to the biological father and biological mother of the child." The district court also concluded that notice to the biological father was "practicable" because J.M.M. had not made a showing that serving notice was not reasonably capable of being accomplished.

The court of appeals, in a published decision, reversed. In re Application of J.M.M. , 890 N.W.2d 750, 756 (Minn. App. 2017). The court determined that the phrase "both parents" was ambiguous and that the Minnesota Parentage Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 257.51 –.74 (2018), was a "logical place to look to determine the meaning of ‘parent.’ " 890 N.W.2d at 754. It then held that, "for purposes of the name-change act, notice is required to be given to a biological father only if he has a parent-child relationship under the Minnesota Parentage Act," and remanded to the district court to "consider and determine whether the biological father satisfies the criteria of the parentage act." Id. at 756.

On remand, the district court held two evidentiary hearings. At these hearings, J.M.M. testified that there was a single biological father for all three children: D.G.

After the hearings, the district court "determined that D.G. has a legally recognized parent-child relationship with [J.M.M.’s] eldest two children and is therefore entitled to notice of the name-change petition[s]."² In re Application of J.M.M. , No. A17-1730, 2018 WL 2470701, at *2 (Minn. App. June 4, 2018). The district court also concluded that notice was practicable because J.M.M. "knows where D.G. lives, and is able to serve him."³ Id. at *6.

The court of appeals, in an unpublished, divided decision, affirmed. Id. at *7. The court held that D.G. had an unrebutted presumptive parent-child relationship under the Parentage Act, Minn. Stat. § 257.55, subd. 1(d), and therefore D.G. was a legal parent entitled to notice of a pending name-change petition for the two eldest children. Id. The court of appeals also affirmed the district court on the issue of practicability, holding that "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that giving notice to D.G. is a thing that can be accomplished, and that it can be safely accomplished." Id. at *6

Chief Judge Cleary dissented. Id. at *7. He disagreed that D.G.’s status satisfied the presumption of paternity created by Minn. Stat. § 257.55, subd. 1(d), which applies when a putative father "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his biological child." In re Application of J.M.M. , 2018 WL 2470701, at *7–8. Chief Judge Cleary also disagreed that notice was practicable, given the safety concerns expressed by J.M.M. Id. at *8. Rather than affirm, he would have "remand[ed] this case with instructions to the district court to schedule a hearing for a name change for the three minor children without notice to D.G." Id. at *9.

We granted J.M.M.’s petition for review. We requested that the Minnesota State Bar Association appoint counsel to argue in response to J.M.M.’s brief, and the MSBA did so.⁴

ANALYSIS

I.

Minnesota Statutes §§ 259.10 –.13 (2018) govern the procedure for seeking a change of name from the district court. An applicant must be a resident of Minnesota for at least six months before applying; must "describe all lands in the state in or upon which" the individual whose name is to be changed may "claim any interest or lien;" and must "appear personally before the court and prove identity by at least two witnesses." Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1. One may apply for oneself, on behalf of "minor children," or for "a spouse, if the spouse joins in the application." Id. If applying on behalf of minor children, the applicant must be their "guardian or next of kin." Id. J.M.M. clearly had the right to apply to have her minor children’s names changed.

At issue in this case is a portion of the final sentence of Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1, which states that "no minor child’s name may be changed without both parents having notice of the pending of the application for change of name, whenever practicable, as determined by the court." Id. The term "both parents" is not defined in the statute. That is the interpretative task before us.

A.

Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Thompson v. Schrimsher , 906 N.W.2d 495, 498 (Minn. 2018). "The first step in statutory interpretation is to ‘determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.’ " Larson v. State , 790 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant , 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001) ). "A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." State v. Fleck , 810 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. 2012). If a statute is unambiguous, we "apply the statute’s plain meaning." Larson , 790 N.W.2d at 703.

"If a statute does not define a word or phrase, we give that word or phrase its ‘plain and ordinary meaning.’ " State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635, 638 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Hayes , 826 N.W.2d 799, 803–04 (Minn. 2013) ). Although we may "look to dictionary definitions to determine a term’s plain and ordinary meaning," the meaning of a statutory phrase is dependent upon context. State v. Henderson , 907 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Minn. 2018).

Here, there are two reasonable dictionary definitions of "parent." One definition is about biology; the other definition is about the law. See, e.g. , Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1641 (1961) (defining parent as "one that begets or brings forth offspring" or as "a lawful parent" (emphasis added)); Parent , Black’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1933) (defining parent as "[t]he lawful father or the mother of a person") (emphasis added); Parent , Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1926) ("The lawful father and mother of the party spoken of") (emphasis added). The legal definition denotes "more than responsibility for conception and birth." Parent , Black’s Law Dictionary 1287 (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). As another dictionary explains, although "parent" may mean "[o]ne who has generated a child; a father or a mother," the definition "in law" is "the relation incident to the contract of marriage, and carrying with it the duty of supporting the children of such...