Feb. 12, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of a request from a Minnesota-wide group of mothers to intervene in a case that struck down a 48-hour parental notification requirement before a minor undergoes an abortion.
The lead counsel for Mothers Offering Maternal Support, or MOMS, argued that the group should be allowed to intervene and appeal the Ramsey County District Court judge’s decision.
The group of roughly 60 mothers who have minor-age daughters argued that parents have a right and a responsibility to be aware of major medical procedures that their minor children might have.
In its opinion, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny intervention, arguing that the intervention application was untimely.
The appeals court stated that the underlying case began in May 2019 and judgment was entered on July 13, 2022. The court stated MOMS filed its intervention notice on Sept. 12, 2022, “during the final hours of the last day to appeal the judgment.”
The appeals court argued that “allowing intervention after MOMS delayed seeking intervention until the very last day of the appeal period would substantially prejudice the existing parties.”
MOMS argued that the plaintiffs in the case had filed an amended complaint only one month prior to the court striking down the parental notice law. The group also alleged that it only became clear when the judgment was entered in July 2022 that Attorney General Keith Ellison, who declined to appeal the ruling and who opposed MOMS’ effort to intervene, had not adequately defended state law.
The appeals court said it was not persuaded that, under the circumstances of the case, the group could only have become aware that its interests weren’t properly protected until the judgment was entered.
“This factor suggests an untimely intervention application,” the opinion stated.
After learning of the court’s decision, Jessica Chastek, a MOMS representative, said in a statement that the motion to intervene was filed to seek protection of statutory and constitutional rights.
“We expect the courts to allow parents to intervene when state officials like the attorney general have stepped aside and refused to protect the rights of parents of minor daughters, especially in matters relating to life-altering health care and medical decisions,” Chastek said.
Teresa Collett, who has served as lead counsel for MOMS, said the group is prepared to take the appeal to the state’s highest court.
“We are confident the Minnesota Supreme Court will understand the importance of MOMS’ right to protect their daughters from sexual exploitation and be involved in life-changing medical decisions,” said Collett, who is a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis and director of the university’s Prolife Center. “The court of appeals has upheld a dangerous precedent allowing a partisan attorney general to fail to defend state law, then fight allowing parents the ability to protect their unique interest. Put simply, this decision bars the courthouse door to citizens to intervene when the Attorney General fails in his duty to defend state law. We are optimistic that the court of final review will allow these Minnesota mothers to protect their constitutional rights under the law.”
