The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.

—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

In October 1989, eleven-year-old Jacob Wetterling was tragically abducted at gunpoint while biking on a rural road in St. Joseph, Minnesota. Searches and investigations began within minutes, though Wetterling’s body was not recovered until 2016.

The case garnered national attention and transformed both state and federal policies regarding child protection and predatory offenders. Wetterling’s abduction led to the first federal law requiring that all states keep offender registries, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act or the Wetterling Act, in 1994. The Act was quickly followed by Megan’s Law that expanded the scope of the Wetterling Act to require that states make information about registered offenders available to the public.

As Wetterling’s home state, Minnesota’s past and current policies toward sex offenders and registries offer a meaningful case study. Analysis of Minnesota’s policies illustrate how prominent child crimes prompted and shaped sex offender registration laws. Since the passage of the Wetterling Act, Minnesota has continued to develop both unique and harsh policies to prevent and punish child crimes. One of the most severe policies, codified in Minnesota Statute § 260C.503, subdiv. 2(a)(6), requires that the Department of Human Services notify county attorneys immediately to file a termination of parental rights petition when they receive a report that a registered offender has become a parent. A strict interpretation of this statute leaves no room for discretion or review, even though a termination of parental rights petition is typically the final and most severe outcome of a child protection proceeding. As a result, in Minnesota, being a registered sex offender automatically disqualifies one from being a parent—no matter the registered offense, whether it was committed against a child, whether the registrant has completed treatment or reoffended, or whether the registrant offended long ago as juvenile.

Created in the wake of the Wetterling case and other public cases like it, the severe policy in Minnesota Statute § 260C.503, subdiv. 2(a)(6) represents a problematic attitude toward sex offenders and their rehabilitation. Fearing the public backlash of appearing lenient and reactionary to crime against children, Minnesota legislated harshly to prevent the most tragic, rare, and public child crimes like Wetterling’s—rather than address those that occur most often. In fact, most sex offenses are committed by family members, friends, or acquaintances of the victim. However, strangers perpetrating the most violent crimes are continually amplified by the media and portrayed as the norm. This myth, and others like it, increase public pressure to legislate against these rare crimes and perpetuate a culture of fear surrounding sex crimes against children and sex offenders themselves.

Harsh policies like Minnesota Statute § 260C.503, subdiv. 2(a)(6) may assuage critics, but they also irrevocably harm offenders, especially juvenile registrants—most of whom offended and reformed long before they became parents. To illustrate the impact of this policy on juvenile registrants, look to this common case. John Doe was convicted of criminal sexual misconduct for a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old youth when he was seventeen years old. The charge required registration as a predatory offender under Minnesota state law. Fifteen years later, John marries and has his first child. John has consistently complied with the terms of his probation and registration. However, his probation officer, a mandatory reporter, must notify the county attorney to file a petition for the termination of parental rights because John has become a father—despite the fact that John has no restriction to avoid contact with minors.

In all cases, Minnesota Statute § 260C.503, subdiv. 2(a)(6) requires that the county attorney petition for the termination of parental rights simply because a registrant has a child. Clearly, John’s constitutional interest in the “care, custody, and control” of his child are being terminated based on his status as a registrant, not a demonstrated risk to the child. By automatically filing to terminate parental rights for any registered predatory offenders, Minnesota disincentivizes good parenting and engagement by fathers, particularly those who offended as juveniles, but remain registered for life.

A strict interpretation of Minnesota Statute § 260C.503, subdiv. 2(a)(6) requires that all registered offenders be punished as though they have both the potential and likelihood to offend at the highest degrees in the future. In Minnesota, registered offenders who become parents are presumed to be dangerous, violent recidivists in all cases. The State automatically terminates offenders’ constitutional right to parent based on the mere risk of recidivism, without any consideration of the actual likelihood of recidivism.