Child Support Was Ruled Unconstitutional

Let's discuss why. On January 28, 1999, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case Holmberg versus Holmberg declaring that Minnesota's administrative child support process was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Blatz delivered the opinion, which consolidated 3 appeals challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota's administrative child support process. The core issue was whether the administrative process, as outlined in Minnesota Statute 518.5511 violated the separation of powers doctrine by encroaching upon the original jurisdiction of the District Courts, by establishing a tribunal not inferior to the District Courts, and by permitting child support officers, CSOs, to engage in the practice of law.

The Court of Appeals had previously ruled the administrative process unconstitutional based on the separation Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the administrative process did indeed violate the separation of powers. The Court recognized the need for timely and equitable distribution of family financial resources to protect children's well-being. The efficient administration of child support cases is a laudable goal shared by all branches of government. However, this goal cannot be pursued at the expense of constitutional constraints.

The Administrative Child Support Process in Minnesota was initially Child Support Process in Minnesota was initially a response to Federal legislation enacted by Congress in 1984, which mandated that States create expedited administrative and judicial procedures for handling child support cases. Minnesota began a pilot program in 1988 using administrative law judges from the Office of Administrative Hearings to preside over child support hearings. However, only the Chief Administrative Law Judge or a designee could render final decisions and orders. Over the next few years, the Administrative Hearing process underwent several modifications and expansions. By 1995, all counties in Minnesota were required to establish administrative child support processes.

The process included uncontested and contested proceedings, the CSOs preparing pleadings and appearing at hearings without attorney supervision. In the administrative hearings, administrative law judges were granted powers comparable to those of district court judges, including issuing subpoenas, conducting proceedings, and modifying child support orders. However, administrative law judges could not preside over contested parentage and contempt proceedings. The Court of Appeals based its decision on the separation of Powers' doctrine, stating that the administrative process placed administrative law judges in the untenable position of reviewing and modifying judicial decisions. The Court of Appeals also relied on the Breimhorst versus Beckman case, emphasizing that an agency's quasi judicial power was acceptable, as long as the agency's decisions were subject to judicial review and lacked judicial finality.

Finality. The Minnesota Supreme Court limited its review to the constitutional issues raised by the administrative child support process. It determined that the process violated separation of powers by infringing on the District violated separation of powers by infringing on the District Court's original jurisdiction and by empowering non attorney CSOs to practice law without court supervision. The Court held that administrative process was unconstitutional for three reasons. 1, it infringed on the District Court's original jurisdiction.

2, judge jurisdiction was not inferior to the District Court's jurisdiction. 3, it empowered non attorneys to practice law infringing on the court's supervisory powers. Given the significant consequences of this ruling, the court decided to apply its decision prospectively, except for the parties before it. Retroactive application would swamp district courts with cases and negatively impact families with final orders. Therefore, the ruling was to take effect on July 1st 1999, allowing the legislature time to amend the laws accordingly.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed and remanded, with the ruling effective immediately for the parties before the court and perspective for all others, pending legislative changes by July 1, 1999. This decision marked a significant shift in the handling of child support cases in Minnesota, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and proper judicial oversight in the administrative process.