Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Minnesota

What’s Minnesota got besides snow, cold weather and some Twin Cities? It’s one of our states that addresses post-adoption contact agreements! So, not only does this state have one of my favorite things (snow!), it actually takes the time to address something that is big in my life and my heart. Good job, Minnesota!

What may be included in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 259.58
Adoptive parents and a birth relative or foster parents may enter an agreement regarding communication, contact, or visitation with or between an adopted minor, adoptive parents, and a birth relative or foster parents.

While I don’t mean to be picky (okay, yes I do!), this answer doesn’t cover the “what” of “what may be included” so much as it covers the “who” of “who may be included.” That said, I am glad to see that foster parents are mentioned in the agreement. They are an important factor int he adoption of some children and their connection and love shouldn’t have to be immediately diminished upon the adoption. I’m pleased to see foster parents included because they, too, should have the ability to enforce a contact agreement! The inclusion of such families is a great one. I think other states should sit up and take notice of this particular point.

Who may be a party to a postadoption contact agreement?
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 259.58
An agreement may be entered between:

* Adoptive parents and a birth parent
* Adoptive parents and any other birth relative or foster parent with whom the child resided before being adopted
* Adoptive parents and any other birth relative if the child is adopted by a birth relative upon the death of both birth parents

For purposes of this section, ‘’birth relative’’ means a parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, or aunt of a minor adopted person. This relationship may be by blood, adoption, or marriage. For an Indian child, birth relative includes members of the extended family as defined by the law or custom of the Indian child’s tribe or, in the absence of laws or custom, nieces, nephews, or first or second cousins, as provided in the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Again, like the previous point, this question covers the “who” but in more (and necessary) detail. I really enjoy the paragraph that elaborates on everyone that birth “relative” covers. I like the inclusion of aunts and uncles as well, even by marriage. (Meaning, not just a brother or sister of the birth parent but their brother and/or sister-in-law. Aunts and uncles rock!) I think it’s interesting that this state has made a provision to allow contact agreements between an adoptive parent who was also a birth relative that adopted the child(ren) after the death of both birth parents. (Meaning, for example, Aunt Sue, the kids’ maternal aunt, adopts the kids after the parents die in a car accident and thus has a contact agreement with the kids’ paternal grandparents.) It’s a nice addition for a unique situation.

What is the role of the court in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 259.58
An agreement regarding communication with or contact between minor adopted persons, adoptive parents, and a birth relative is not legally enforceable unless the terms of the agreement are contained in a written court order entered in accordance with this section.

An order may be sought at any time before a decree of adoption is granted. The order must be issued within 30 days of being submitted to the court or by the granting of the decree of adoption, whichever is earlier.

The court shall not enter a proposed order unless the terms of the order have been approved in writing by the prospective adoptive parents, a birth relative or foster parent who desires to be a party to the agreement, and, if the child is in the custody of or under the guardianship of an agency, a representative of the agency.

A birth parent must approve in writing an agreement between adoptive parents and any other birth relative or foster parent, unless an action has been filed against the birth parent by a county under chapter 260.

An agreement under this section need not disclose the identity of the parties to be legally enforceable.

The court shall not enter a proposed order unless the court finds that the communication or contact between the minor adopted person, the adoptive parents, and a birth relative as agreed upon and contained in the proposed order would be in the minor adopted person’s best interests.

Ah-ha, we see another interesting addition from this state. It’s one that many birth parents (and adoptive parents) have discussed with varying degrees of acceptance and/or animosity in the past. I’m referring, of course, to the fact that birth parents have to agree, in writing, to the communication between the adoptive family and any other birth relative. I see this as a good thing and a bad thing, all at the same time. Why?

Sometimes birth parents have been coerced or forced to place by relatives. Sometimes they just flat out don’t like their relatives. Sometimes they know more about their relatives than a potential adopting family and may have insight into whether or not the relationship would be beneficial for the child. In these cases, yes, I believe that birth parents should be able to sign off on who can engage in contact. On the other hand, I know many birth parents who have reconciled with their families after placement and, considering the time frame in which this agreement has to be filed, the birth relatives could be denied a “legal” relationship with the placed child because of feelings that have since cleared. Furthermore, I’ve come to believe that the more people available to love a child, well, the better! And so, yes, I see this as a definite two-sided-coin kind of issue and one to be dealt with very carefully.

Are agreements legally enforceable?
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 259.58
An agreement regarding communication with or contact between minor adopted persons, adoptive parents, and a birth relative is not legally enforceable unless the terms of the agreement are contained in a written court order entered in accordance with this section.

An agreement may be enforced by filing a petition or motion with the family court that includes a certified copy of the order granting the communication, contact, or visitation, but only if the petition or motion is accompanied by an affidavit that the parties have mediated or attempted to mediate any dispute under the agreement or that the parties agree to a proposed modification. The prevailing party may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

A pretty straight forward answer on this one, which is nice. If the families can prove that they’ve gone through some mediation for said problem (via an affidavit, even!), then the court could step in to work with the families. Also, if the families agree to the changes that are being sought to be made, then the court will agree to modify the contact agreement. I wonder, however, if that is only in the case of lessening contact like Massachusetts and not any form of broadening the contact. That would be helpful to know now that we know at least one state dictates the direction of change.

How may an agreement be terminated or modified?
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 259.58
The court shall not modify an agreement order unless it finds that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the minor adoptee, and:

* The modification is agreed to by the parties to the agreement.
* Exceptional circumstances have arisen since the agreement order was entered that justify modification of the order.

Of course, in addition to the previously mentioned stuff, the court has to believe that the changes are in the best interest of the child. And, once again, we’re left to wonder what exactly exceptional circumstances are exactly (like in Maryland). I’m all for the best interest of the child but I’m continuously confused by the vague wording that states choose to address a wide range of issues.

While Minnesota isn’t “exceptional” in their law, they did bring a few unique ideas to the table that at least deserve further discussion. Allowing birth parents to be the gatekeeper to the rest of the biological family could really be a double-edged sword that could either be beneficial to the child or a big pain in the rear in years to come. Once again, we see some vague wording that only leaves us asking questions at the end. I wonder what it would take to modify these statutes? I bet there’s some vague wording on that topic.

//
For more, read:

1. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Massachusetts.

2. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Maryland.

3. Information from the State Statute Search at ChildWelfare.gov in November 2007.

//
Photo Credit.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.