This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0544
In re the Matter of: Angel A. Fernandez, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Cindy Marbella Anariba,
Appellant.
Filed January 30, 2017
Remanded
Stauber, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-15-546
Angel A. Fernandez, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
Brianna H. Boone, Elizabeth J. Richards, Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Nathan J. Hartshorn, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon)
Caroline S. Palmer, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
amicus curiae)
Kristine Lizdas, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus
curiae)
Rana Alexander, Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
amicus curiae)
Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAUBER, Judge
Appellant-mother, a participant in the Safe at Home (SAH) program, challenges
the district court’s order requiring her to disclose her address to respondent-father.
Appellant argues that the district court failed to follow the requirements of Minn. Stat.
§ 5B.11 (2016). Because the parties have resolved all of their disputes and there is no
existing controversy, the issue is moot. We, therefore, remand to the district court to
dismiss the order requiring appellant to disclose her address to respondent.
FACTS
Appellant Cindy Marbella Anariba and respondent Angel A. Fernandez signed a
recognition of parentage for their child born in March 2014. Respondent filed a petition
for custody and parenting time against appellant. Appellant filed an answer and
counterpetition seeking joint legal and joint physical custody of the child and requesting
that child support be established. Appellant listed the child’s address as a confidential
address in Hennepin County and requested that she not be required to disclose it.
The parties stipulated to custody and parenting time. The district court held an
evidentiary hearing on the child support and confidential address issues. Appellant
testified that she applied to the SAH program because respondent began stalking her after
their separation. Respondent’s testimony did not address the stalking allegations.
Respondent testified that he wanted to know the child’s address so he could make sure
the child was in a safe environment. Appellant stated that she was willing to disclose
2
information about her living situation to respondent and that she would allow someone
from a state agency to verify that the child was in a safe environment.
The district court ordered appellant to disclose the child’s residence address to
respondent. This appeal followed. Respondent did not file a brief on appeal, so this
court directed the appeal to proceed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03. This court
granted leave to the Battered Women’s Justice Project, the Battered Women’s Legal
Advocacy Project, and the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault to file an amici
curiae brief. This court also granted leave to the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of
State to file an amicus curiae brief.
DECISION
The purpose of the SAH program is to protect “individuals attempting to escape
from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.” Minn. Stat.
§ 5B.01 (2016). The secretary of state shall certify an eligible person as a program
participant when specified criteria are met, one of which is a statement by the applicant
that the applicant has good reason to believe that the eligible person is a stalking victim.
Minn. Stat. § 5B.03 (2016). Minn. Stat. § 5B.11 states:
If a program participant’s address is protected under
section 5B.05, no person or entity shall be compelled to
disclose the participant’s actual address during the discovery
phase of or during a proceeding before a court or other tribunal
unless the court or tribunal finds that:
(1) there is a reasonable belief that the address is
needed to obtain information or evidence without which the
investigation, prosecution, or litigation cannot proceed; and
(2) there is no other practicable way of obtaining
the information or evidence.
3
The court must provide the program participant with
notice that address disclosure is sought and an opportunity to
present evidence regarding the potential harm to the safety of
the program participant if the address is disclosed. In
determining whether to compel disclosure, the court must
consider whether the potential harm to the safety of the
participant is outweighed by the interest in disclosure. In a
criminal proceeding, the court must order disclosure of a
program participant’s address if protecting the address would
violate a defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness.
The district court did not make the findings required under the statute before
ordering address disclosure. Instead, the district court’s order was based primarily on its
determination that the SAH program “does not allow for due process” because there was
no notice to respondent of appellant’s application to the SAH program and no
opportunity for him to contest the application.
Minnesota courts conduct “a two-step analysis to determine whether the
government has violated an individual’s procedural due process rights.” Rew v.
Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 785 (Minn. 2014). The first step is to “identify whether the
government has deprived the individual of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.”
Id. “If the government’s action does not deprive an individual of such an interest, then no
process is due.” Id. “[I]f the government’s action deprives an individual of a protected
interest, then the second step requires [the court] to determine whether the procedures
followed by the [government] were constitutionally sufficient.” Id. (quotation omitted).
A parent who has established a sufficient relationship with a child has a protected
liberty interest in the relationship. Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355, 372 (Minn.
2002). “[P]arents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of
4
their children.” Rew, 845 N.W.2d at 786. But we need not decide whether this protected
interest extends to knowing the location of a child’s residence or whether the statutory
procedure governing disclosure is sufficient to protect such an interest for two reasons.
First, respondent has not notified the attorney general that he is challenging the
constitutionality of a statute. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 144 (requiring party challenging the
constitutionality of a statute in an appellate proceeding to notify the attorney general).
Generally, this court will decline to consider the constitutionality of a statute when the
attorney general has not been notified. See Minn. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Integra Telecom,
Inc., 697 N.W2d 223, 230-31 (Minn. App. 2005) (declining to consider due-process
challenge to statute when notice not given to attorney general), review denied (Minn.
Aug. 16, 2005). On this ground alone, we decline to address the due-process issue.
Second, the dispute is moot, and the issue no longer justiciable. The issue of
disclosure was raised in connection with respondent’s motion on custody and parenting
time. At oral argument, appellant’s counsel conceded that these issues have been
resolved and that there is no existing controversy between the parties. To the extent that
respondent raised a safety concern about appellant’s home, there is no record evidence
substantiating that concern, and appellant agreed to allow a state agency representative to
verify the safety of the child’s environment. Because there is no existing controversy, the
disclosure issue is moot. See Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Minn. 2015)
(“Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The
requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation
(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” (quotation omitted));
5
Citizens for Rule of Law v. Senate Comm. on Rules & Admin., 770 N.W.2d 169, 175
(Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he doctrine requires a comparison between the relief demanded
and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether
there is a live controversy that can be resolved.“ (quotation omitted)), review denied
(Minn. Oct. 20, 2009).
We, therefore, remand the case to the district court to dismiss the order requiring
appellant to disclose her address to respondent.
Remanded.
6