Key Takeaways:
- A Minnesota state district court judge has ruled that the early rollout of a landmark child welfare law is unconstitutional due to its gradual implementation, which excludes some eligible families from its protections.
- The law, known as the Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act, aims to minimize disproportionality in the child welfare system by requiring social workers to make "active efforts" to avoid separating children from their families if they are from groups overrepresented in foster care.
- The court’s ruling bars the law’s two-year implementation from continuing as envisioned by lawmakers, and the law will now take effect statewide on January 1, 2027, unless the Legislature creates a new phase-in approach that does not violate Constitutional rights.
- The ruling has been met with mixed reactions, with some advocates expressing disappointment and frustration, while others see it as an opportunity to address legal issues and ensure the law is applied fairly and consistently.
Introduction to the Ruling
The Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act, a landmark child welfare law, has been ruled unconstitutional in its early rollout by a state district court judge. The law, which aims to minimize disproportionality in the child welfare system, requires social workers to make "active efforts" to avoid separating children from their families if they are from groups overrepresented in foster care due to their "race, culture, ethnicity, disability status, or low-income socioeconomic status." However, the court found that the law’s gradual implementation, which applies to only 30% of eligible cases initially, violates the 14th Amendment’s right to equal protection.
The Law and Its Provisions
The Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act was passed in May 2024 and is set to take effect statewide on January 1, 2027. The law requires social workers to make "active efforts" to avoid separating children from their families if they are from groups overrepresented in foster care. This includes requiring higher standards of evidence for substantiating allegations of abuse or neglect in court and prioritizing in-home services, with children remaining with their parents whenever possible. The law also prioritizes relatives and kin as caregivers if removal is deemed necessary.
The Court’s Ruling
The court’s ruling, issued on December 3, states that the law’s gradual implementation is "decidedly underinclusive" and "excludes a significant percentage of the population the statute is designed to benefit." The judge, Matthew Frank, wrote that the phase-in approach "discriminates on the basis of race and the randomness of geography and timing." The ruling bars the law’s two-year implementation from continuing as envisioned by lawmakers, and the law will now take effect statewide on January 1, 2027, unless the Legislature creates a new phase-in approach that does not violate Constitutional rights.
Reactions to the Ruling
The ruling has been met with mixed reactions from advocates and lawmakers. State Rep. Esther Agbaje, who authored the law, expressed her commitment to updating the legislation in the 2026 session to address the court’s concerns. A spokesperson for Ramsey County stated that the county is staying the course for now, while a spokesperson for Hennepin County’s Department of Human Services said the impact of the ruling is not yet clear. Family advocates, such as Kelis Houston, founder of the nonprofit Village Arms, expressed disappointment and frustration with the ruling, arguing that the law’s protections should apply to all qualifying families, not just those who are "cherry-picked" by county staff.
The Impact on Families
The ruling has significant implications for families who are eligible for the law’s protections. The plaintiff in the motion challenging the gradual ramp-up, Mariah Banks, a Black mother, had two children removed by Hennepin County child welfare authorities. Her lawyers argued that the phase-in approach creates a "discriminatory subclass within a protected group" and that there is no publicly available data explaining how or why certain African American families are chosen over others. The court’s ruling highlights the need for a fair and consistent application of the law to ensure that all eligible families receive the protections intended for them.
The Way Forward
The ruling provides an opportunity for lawmakers and advocates to address legal issues and ensure the law is applied fairly and consistently. Attorney and law professor Joanna Woolman expressed her hope that the case will surface real questions and problems that need to be addressed, and that counties and the state agency will come together to proactively ensure the law can roll out as intended. Kelis Houston, of Village Arms, is also looking ahead, stating that the ruling will compel legislators to step in and ensure the law is applied fairly and consistently. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that every qualifying family deserves access to the protections intended for them, and that the implementation of the law reflects the equity and accountability that communities have fought so hard to secure.
