The Resident Solution · Directive 02

Family Rights &
Parental Sovereignty

The state does not have the right to separate children from fit parents without proof. It does not have the right to override both parents on irreversible medical decisions. And it does not have the right to teach your child about sex before you do.

I know what it feels like to have rights on paper that meant nothing in practice. I sat across from a system that had power over my family and felt what that actually is. This entire directive is built from that experience — and from every parent in Minnesota who has been told the system works for them while watching it work against them. Parental sovereignty is not a political position. It is a constitutional right. And this administration will govern like it.
Read the directive
What It Is

Fourteen Reforms.
All Enforceable.

Minnesota's family court and child protection systems have failed entire categories of parents and children — systematically, for years, with no accountability. This directive fixes the system with fourteen specific, legally grounded reforms. Every piece is tied to a statute. Every piece is enforceable from day one. None of it is a promise. All of it is an order.

01
Burden of Proof Before Removal
Imminent physical harm — documented, not predicted — is the standard the state must meet before removing a child from a fit parent. Risk scores and caseworker assessments do not meet this standard.
02
72-Hour Judicial Hearing
Either way — emergency or not — a judge is involved. What this directive guarantees is that the judge is involved within 72 hours, not six weeks later after the damage is already done. Emergency removal happens when a child faces immediate physical danger right now. Everything else goes before a judge within 72 hours. The state presents its evidence. If it cannot show imminent harm — not a risk score, not a prediction, imminent harm — the child comes home.
03
Legal Representation at Removal
State-funded legal counsel from the moment removal is initiated. Not at the first hearing. At the moment the state moves against you.
04
Office of Parental Rights
An independent investigative office — outside DHS — that receives complaints, investigates, and acts. Reports directly to the Governor. Findings are public. Has authority to refer matters for prosecution.
05
Safe at Home Reform
When children are enrolled, the program requires a 72-hour emergency court order or a police report no older than 48 hours. A self-reported statement of fear does not conceal children from fit parents. Renewal requires an active court order — not another administrative form.
06
Presumptive 50/50 Parenting Time
Equal parenting is the default. Deviation requires specific documented findings of demonstrated danger — not assumption, not gender, not convenience.
07
Parental Alienation — Criminal Enforcement
Documented alienation triggers mandatory county attorney referral under MN Stat. 609.26. The county attorney must respond in writing within 30 days — charges or a written explanation that becomes public record.
08
Vexatious Filing Accountability
A pattern of protective orders or CPS reports filed and dismissed for lack of evidence is named, documented, and met with real consequences — attorney fee shifting, credibility reversal, and potential false report charges.
09
CPS Weaponization — Flagged
CPS reports filed within 30 days of a scheduled hearing or opposing court filing are cross-referenced, flagged, and reviewed by the Office of Parental Rights. Pattern abuse becomes visible. Visible patterns have consequences.
10
Military Parent Protection
Deployment, active duty, or any service-related absence cannot be used as evidence of abandonment, lack of bonding, or parental unfitness. Minnesota will not punish parents for serving their country.
11
GAL Reform & Nonprofit Audit
All Guardians ad Litem licensed, trained, and subject to disciplinary review. All nonprofits receiving state funds audited for compliance with parental rights and active court orders.
12
Public Data. No Removal Incentives.
Removal rates published by county, race, and income — quarterly, plain language, no paywall. No county receives financial benefit tied to removal volume.
13
Two-Parent Consent — Irreversible Medical Decisions
No permanent or irreversible medical procedure shall be performed on a minor child in Minnesota without documented, informed consent from both legal parents or guardians — where both are living, accessible, and hold parental rights. No physician, no facility, no administrator, and no court order issued without both parents present overrides this standard. One parent does not override it. A minor cannot override it. The state does not override it.
14
Parental Notification in Schools — Age-Appropriate Standards
The Department of Education shall establish a statewide standard: no sexual health content — including gender identity curriculum — shall be introduced before 4th grade. Parents must receive written notification before any such unit is taught and have a meaningful right to opt their child out without academic penalty. Districts that do not comply are not in compliance with state education standards — and state funding follows compliance.
The Structure

Where the System
Breaks — and How.

Four specific mechanisms have been used to deny fit parents access to their children in Minnesota. Each one has a documented legal gap. Each gap has a specific fix. This is how they work and what this directive does about them.

01
Safe at Home — The Evidentiary Gap, By Statute
The Secretary of State's Safe at Home program is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 5B and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8290. The program was built to protect genuine victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. That purpose is legitimate and this directive preserves it for adults. The problem is specific and documented.
MN Stat. 5B.03, Subd. 1: The Secretary of State shall certify a program participant when the Secretary receives an application containing "a statement by the applicant that the applicant has good reason to believe that the eligible person fears for the person's safety." A statement of belief. That is the entire evidentiary threshold. No police report. No court finding. No corroboration of any kind.
Under MN Rules 8290.0700, Subp. 2, a participant can add minor children by signed written notification alone. The Secretary of State must then certify the minor child. Under MN Stat. 5B.03, that certification lasts four years — and renews on the same self-reported basis, indefinitely, four years at a time. A parent can disappear with a child on a statement of fear and never face a judge.
The fix: When children are enrolled, a 72-hour emergency judicial order or a police report dated no more than 48 hours prior is required. The initial child certification period is reduced to 90 days — enough time to get before a judge. Renewal requires an active court order authorizing continued concealment. Not another form. A judge. The program stays intact for adults. The judicial function is restored for children.
02
Presumptive 50/50 — The Standard We Will Not Wait For
Children have the right to both parents. Minnesota's current framework treats that as a factor to be weighed, not a right to be protected. The legislature is moving — but this Governor will not wait.
SF
MN SF4343 — Custody & Parenting Time Presumptions Modifications

Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a child should spend at least 50% of parenting time with each parent — up from the previous 25% floor. Courts must not prefer one parent on the basis of gender. Both parents presumed capable of nurturing relationships unless substantial evidence says otherwise.

⬤ Active — 94th Legislature (2025–2026) · Set to take effect August 1, 2026
Executive policy under this Governor treats equal parenting time as the presumed outcome in all DHS-administered and court-adjacent processes under supervisory authority. Danger must be found by a court. Not assumed by a system with a documented history of bias in its outcomes.
03
Parental Alienation — The Law Exists. It Isn't Enforced.
Attorneys tell parents that parental alienation is hard to prove. That is not entirely wrong — but it is incomplete. The criminal statute has existed for decades. What has been missing is a system that requires anyone to use it.
MN Stat. 609.26: It is a criminal offense to conceal a minor child from a parent where the action manifests intent to substantially deprive that parent of parental rights — or to retain a minor child in violation of a court order. Aggravating circumstances, including a prior conviction, elevate the offense to felony level.
When a parent documents years of denied access, ignored court orders, a neighbor who signed a deposition saying the other parent admitted to hiding the children to "teach them a lesson" — and a court calls it a civil matter — that is not a legal conclusion. That is a failure of will. A signed deposition goes nowhere because no one is required to act on it. This directive changes that.
The fix: Documented alienation triggers mandatory referral to the county attorney for review under MN Stat. 609.26. The county attorney has 30 days to respond in writing — charges or a written explanation. That explanation is a public record reviewed by the Office of Parental Rights. Verified alienation also triggers mandatory reunification therapy at the alienating parent's expense, formal contempt proceedings, and custody review. A second violation triggers automatic contempt — no further judicial discretion required.
04
Vexatious Filing — When the Legal System Becomes the Weapon
There is a pattern Minnesota courts see and refuse to name. A protective order is filed — dismissed for lack of evidence. Another in a different county or state — dismissed. A CPS report the week a hearing is scheduled — dismissed. Each one treated as if it arrived from a blank slate. Each one costing the targeted parent thousands of dollars, months of delay, and damage that compounds over years. That is not a series of safety concerns. That is a strategy.
What Vexatious Filing Looks Like — The Pattern Courts Must See
4 Orders for Protection Filed All dismissed — lack of evidence
3 States Where Filings Occurred Jurisdiction-hopping, no cross-state flag
3 CPS Reports Filed All dismissed — lack of evidence
Every filing timed to delay an opposing court action. Every filing dismissed. The targeted parent financially drained, professionally destabilized, emotionally dismantled — while the court treats each filing as a fresh, isolated incident with no history. This directive makes the pattern visible. Visible patterns have consequences.
The fix: Three dismissed OFPs or CPS complaints by the same party triggers automatic Office of Parental Rights referral. Consequences: attorney fee shifting, a rebuttable presumption against credibility in future proceedings, and referral under MN Stat. 609.507 for false reporting. The Attorney General coordinates under Interstate Compact frameworks to flag cross-state patterns — jurisdiction-hopping is treated as a unified pattern, not isolated incidents in separate states. CPS reports filed within 30 days of an active court hearing are flagged and cross-referenced automatically.
06
Two-Parent Consent — The Standard That Should Never Have Been Optional
No permanent or irreversible medical procedure shall be performed on a minor child in Minnesota without the documented, informed consent of both legal parents or guardians — where both are living, accessible, and hold parental rights. This is not a position on any identity or community. This is a position on parental rights — universal, consistent, and non-negotiable. A minor cannot consent to something permanent on their own behalf. One parent cannot consent on behalf of the other. And the state does not get to decide that one parent's objection is irrelevant.
Constitutional grounding — 14th Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Troxel v. Granville (2000): The Supreme Court has recognized parental rights as among the oldest fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Both parents hold that right equally. No procedure of a permanent nature bypasses that right.
They will say: "This is targeting the transgender community."

The answer: This applies to every irreversible medical procedure performed on a minor — regardless of what it is or who it involves. Both parents have equal rights over their child's irreversible medical decisions. That is not a political statement. That is the Constitution. If you are arguing that one parent should be able to override another on something permanent done to their child, you are arguing against parental rights — not for them.
They will say: "What if one parent is abusive or absent?"

The answer: Existing law already addresses that. A parent who has lost parental rights through court proceeding has no standing here. A parent with a documented history of abuse has no standing here. This reform applies where both parents are legally present, accessible, and hold parental rights. Those are the cases where one parent is currently being overridden — and that is what this stops.
07
Parental Notification in Schools — You Have the Right to Know First
A parent in Minnesota should not find out their third grader was taught sexual content because their child came home with questions they weren't prepared to answer. That is not education. That is the state making a parenting decision without you. This directive establishes three things through the Department of Education:

1. Age-appropriateness standard. Sexual health content — including gender identity curriculum — is not introduced before 4th grade in any Minnesota public school. This is not a ban on discussing these topics. It is a standard that most parents, regardless of political affiliation, already agree with when they hear it stated plainly.

2. Mandatory written notification. Before any sexual health unit is taught at any grade level, parents receive written notification — in advance, with enough time to review the material. Not a form letter after the fact. Prior notice.

3. Real opt-out with no penalty. Parents who choose to opt their child out of a specific unit face no academic penalty, no notation on the child's record, and no differential treatment. The opt-out is real — not a rubber-stamp process designed to discourage.
Enforcement mechanism: The Department of Education sets statewide standards. State education aid is distributed based on compliance with those standards. Districts that do not comply are not in compliance — and state funding follows compliance. This does not require a legislative vote. It requires a Governor willing to set the standard and enforce it.
They will say: "This is a Don't Say Gay law. You're censoring teachers and erasing LGBTQ students."

The answer: No content is banned. No teacher is censored. No student is erased. What this requires is that parents know what is being taught and when — and that the timeline is appropriate for the age of the child. Most parents, including many who consider themselves progressive, agree that 3rd grade is too early for sexual content of any kind. That is the position. If you disagree, tell me why a parent does not have the right to know what their child is being taught.
They will say: "This puts LGBTQ kids at risk by silencing conversations they need."

The answer: This directive does not silence any student. It sets an age-appropriate starting point for formal curriculum and ensures parents are informed partners in that conversation. A school counselor can still support a student. A teacher can still answer a direct question. What this stops is the state making a curriculum decision about sexual content without parents knowing it is happening.
Who It's For

Every Parent
Minnesota Failed.

This directive exists because Minnesota has failed entire categories of parents and children — systematically, for years, with no accountability. This directive connects directly to Directive 12 — Men's Mental Health & Suicide Prevention. The pipeline from family court failure to isolation to mental health crisis is not a coincidence. It is a documented outcome. Fixing the family court system is mental health policy. They are the same problem.

Fathers Denied Access
Parents — disproportionately fathers — who lost access to their children on unproven allegations, with no legal representation, no independent oversight, and no mechanism to enforce the orders that were supposed to protect them. The mental and financial toll is documented. Some do not survive it.
Veterans Punished for Serving
Parents whose military deployment was used against them in custody proceedings as evidence of absence, lack of bonding, or abandonment — by a state that sent them to serve and then penalized them for going.
Targets of the Legal System
Parents who faced multiple dismissed protective orders and CPS reports — each one timed to a court filing, each one costing thousands of dollars and months of their lives — while the court treated every filing as if it had no history behind it.
Families DHS Failed
Black, Native, and immigrant families removed from their children on risk scores rather than proof. Low-income parents who couldn't afford a lawyer at the moment the state moved against them. Parents who were told the system was working in the best interest of the child — while the child was taken without a hearing.
Children Denied Both Parents
Children who grew up not knowing a parent who never stopped trying to reach them. Children whose relationship with a fit parent was deliberately dismantled — and whose state provided no mechanism to stop it.
Parents Overridden on Medical Decisions
Parents who found out their child received or was approved for an irreversible medical procedure — and their objection was treated as irrelevant. Both parents hold parental rights equally. Both parents must consent to something permanent. That is not a fringe position — that is the law as it should be applied.
Parents Who Found Out Last
Parents who learned what their child was being taught in school not from a notification — but from their child coming home with questions they weren't prepared for. You are the parent. You have the right to know first. You have the right to decide whether your 8-year-old is ready for that conversation. The school does not make that call. You do.
Anyone Told This Is Just How It Works
Every parent who sat across from a lawyer and was told Minnesota is a woman's state. Every parent who filed a motion and watched it get buried. Every parent who had proof and was told it wasn't enough. It was always enough. The system just never required anyone to act on it.
Why It Has to Happen

Because the System
Was Weaponized.

Minnesota's family court and child protection systems were built to protect children and families. What they became is something else.
25%
Previous minimum parenting time floor — the legal minimum before SF4343
0
Evidentiary requirements in Safe at Home to conceal a child from a fit parent
4 YRS
How long Safe at Home conceals a child per certification — renewable indefinitely with no proof

The burden of proof that protects every person accused of a crime does not exist in Minnesota's family court system. A caseworker's risk score is enough to remove a child. A self-reported statement of fear is enough to enroll that child in Safe at Home and disappear for four years — then four more, then four more. A strategically timed OFP is enough to delay a custody hearing for months and repeat the cycle. None of these require proof. All of them cost the targeted parent everything.

Fathers have been told — by lawyers, by experience — that Minnesota is a woman's state. They are not wrong about the outcome. The system has no presumption of equality, no consequence for alienation, no mechanism to identify vexatious filing patterns, and no independent office to hear complaints. It feeds itself. Parents and children pay the price. And some do not survive it.

That last fact is not rhetorical. Parents — disproportionately fathers — who lose access to their children through this system face measurably elevated rates of depression, financial collapse, and suicide. Minnesota cannot build a mental health policy that ignores its family court system. The two are the same problem. This directive treats them that way.

How It Works

The Governor's
Mechanism.

The Governor supervises DHS under MN Stat. 256.01. That supervision is not ceremonial. These are the operational mandates this directive puts in motion from day one.

1
DHS Adopts Written Removal Standard
Within 60 days, DHS publishes and adopts a written standard requiring documented imminent physical harm before non-emergency removal. Risk scores alone do not meet this standard. The standard is public and enforceable across every county.
2
72-Hour Judicial Hearing Protocol
Here is the simple version: either way, a judge is involved. The difference is timing. Emergency removal — police on scene, visible injury, immediate danger — happens immediately and goes before a judge on an emergency calendar. Non-emergency removal — a risk assessment, a tip, a caseworker's judgment call with no active incident — goes before a judge within 72 hours under this directive, instead of weeks or months later under the current system. The state presents its evidence at that hearing. If it cannot demonstrate imminent physical harm by clear and convincing evidence, the child comes home. No county exceptions. No continuances without cause. A judge decides within 72 hours — not a supervisor, not a committee, not the passage of time.
3
Legal Representation Pipeline Established
DHS contracts with legal aid providers and public defenders to ensure parents have appointed counsel at the time of removal initiation — not at the first hearing, at the moment. Funded through allocated state resources and a portion of the 15% cannabis tax revenue stream established under Directive 07.
4
Office of Parental Rights Opens
An independent investigative office — not housed within DHS — receives complaints, investigates, and acts. Reports directly to the Governor. Findings are public. Authority to recommend corrective action and refer matters for prosecution.
5
Safe at Home Child Enrollment Policy Updated
The Secretary of State amends MN Rules Chapter 8290: children require a 72-hour judicial order or sub-48-hour police report for enrollment. Initial child certification period reduced to 90 days. Renewal requires an active court order. No child is concealed from a fit parent on a form alone.
6
County Attorney 609.26 Referral Protocol Mandated
The Attorney General issues guidance requiring courts to refer documented 609.26 violations for county attorney review. The county attorney has 30 days to respond in writing — charges or a written explanation. That explanation is a public record reviewed by the Office of Parental Rights. Silence is no longer an option.
7
Alienation Consequences Protocol
Verified alienation triggers mandatory reunification therapy at the alienating parent's expense, formal contempt proceedings, and custody review. A second documented violation triggers automatic contempt referral — no further judicial discretion required.
8
Vexatious Filing Review at Third Dismissal
Three dismissed OFPs or CPS complaints by the same party triggers automatic Office of Parental Rights referral. Consequences: attorney fee shifting, credibility presumption reversal in future proceedings, potential 609.507 referral. CPS reports filed within 30 days of an active court hearing are flagged automatically.
9
Interstate Pattern Coordination
The Attorney General's office establishes procedures under Interstate Compact frameworks to identify cross-state patterns of dismissed protective filings involving the same parties and children. Jurisdiction-hopping is treated as a unified pattern — not isolated incidents in separate states.
10
Military Parent Protection Codified
No Minnesota court or DHS proceeding under the Governor's authority may treat military service, deployment, or service-related absence as evidence of abandonment or unfitness. DHS training updated within 90 days. Applies to any ongoing proceeding where military service has been cited as a negative factor.
11
Nonprofit Audit Initiated
Full compliance audit of all state-funded nonprofits operating in family court and child welfare settings. Any organization found facilitating rights violations or ignoring court orders loses state funding immediately pending remediation.
12
Public Transparency Dashboard Launched
DHS publishes quarterly reports — plain language, no paywall — on removal rates, reunification timelines, and outcomes by county, race, and income level. The public can see what is happening. That visibility is the accountability mechanism.
Legal Authority

What the Law
Already Allows.

This directive operates entirely within established Minnesota and federal executive authority. These statutes are not stretched — they are read as written and enforced as intended. The legal team will review and verify each citation prior to signing.

MN Stat. 256.01DHS Supervisory Authority
Governor's supervisory authority over the Department of Human Services — operational standards, rulemaking direction, and programmatic requirements. The foundation for every DHS directive in this order.
MN Stat. Ch. 5B / MN Rules 8290Safe at Home
Safe at Home program statute and administrative rules. The evidentiary gap this directive closes is specifically in the self-reported-belief enrollment standard and the minor child addition procedure under Subp. 2. The four-year certification and renewal structure without judicial review is the mechanism this directive reforms.
MN Stat. 609.26Child Concealment — Criminal
Criminal statute prohibiting concealment of a minor child from a parent and violation of custody orders. Felony-level offense with aggravating circumstances. The enforcement mechanism this directive mandates county attorneys to use — a statute that has existed for decades and has been routinely ignored.
MN Stat. 609.507False Reporting
False reporting statute — the basis for referral when a pattern of dismissed protective orders or CPS complaints constitutes vexatious filing rather than legitimate safety concerns.
MN Stat. 260CChild Protection
The full Minnesota child protection chapter — governs removal, placement, reunification, and family court procedures. The basis for the burden of proof standard and 72-hour hearing requirement.
MN Stat. 260.012Family Preservation
Family preservation mandate — requires reasonable efforts to keep families intact before removal. This directive enforces what is already required by law. The mandate exists. The enforcement has not.
MN Stat. 518.17Custody Standard
Courts must not prefer one parent on the basis of gender. Both parents presumed capable of nurturing relationships. Already the law. This directive enforces it and aligns executive policy with the legislative direction of SF4343.
MN Stat. 260C.163GAL Oversight
GAL oversight statute — basis for licensing, training, and disciplinary review requirements established in this directive.
MN Stat. 14.02Agency Rulemaking
Executive authority over agency rulemaking — the mechanism by which DHS and the Secretary of State adopt the new standards required by this directive.
50 U.S.C. § 3901SCRA — Federal
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act — federal baseline protections for active duty servicemembers in civil proceedings. This directive codifies and extends those protections explicitly in Minnesota executive policy.
MN Const. Art. V §3Executive Authority
Governor's executive authority to direct the executive branch and ensure faithful execution of the law. The constitutional foundation for every directive in this order.
U.S. Const. 14th Amend.Due Process
The right to parent one's child is a fundamental liberty interest. Removing children without proof, or weaponizing the legal system to deny parental access, violates that right. The constitutional floor this directive enforces.
The Numbers

The Data
Doesn't Lie.

These are not talking points. Every figure below is sourced and verifiable. This is what the system actually looks like when you measure it.

$46M
Minnesota's 2024 child protection budget — up $13M from 2017 while children served dropped by half
More money. Fewer children helped. Someone needs to explain that math.
Source: CASA Minnesota, Aug 2025
$34K
Maximum annual cost to keep one child in Minnesota foster care
Legal representation for a parent at point of removal costs a fraction of that. We keep choosing the more expensive option that breaks families apart.
Source: MN DHS Northstar rates, 2024–2025
17x
Rate at which Native American children enter Minnesota foster care vs. general population
One of the worst disparities in the country. It is not an accident. It is a system.
Source: National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges
7.5 mo
Less time in foster care when a child has a Guardian ad Litem
In high-needs cases that translates to tens of thousands of dollars in savings. Hundreds of children in the system right now have no advocate at all.
Source: CASA Minnesota, Aug 2025
65%
Minnesota removals beginning with law enforcement emergency holds — with no consistent standard across counties
Same system. Wildly different outcomes. Depending entirely on which county you live in.
Source: MN Legislative Auditor, 2022
17%
Foster children nationally who spent 3 or more years in the system in 2024
Foster care is meant to be a short-term bridge. Nearly 1 in 5 children were in the system for more than three years. Every unnecessary month is a month away from a fit parent who never stopped fighting.
Source: AFCARS Report, FY2024

Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2022: Child protection agencies are required by law to make "reasonable efforts" to avoid removing children from their homes. The Auditor found that standard is not well defined nor consistently implemented — and that prevention services varied widely from agency to agency and case to case. The mandate exists. The enforcement has not. That is what this directive fixes.

Opposition & Rebuttals

They Say.
My Answer.

The people who benefit from the current system will oppose this directive. Here is what they will say — and the truth.

They Say"This will put children at risk."
My AnswerThe current system removes children without proof of harm. A burden of proof standard protects children and families from a system that has demonstrated it cannot self-regulate. Requiring evidence before separating a child from a fit parent is not a risk to children. It is the definition of protecting them.
They Say"We can't afford legal representation for every parent."
My AnswerWe spend more on foster care per child than on legal representation. Keeping families intact is cheaper and better for children. The question is not whether we can afford it. The question is whether we are willing to keep paying more to break families apart.
They Say"Safe at Home protects domestic violence victims. You're dismantling it."
My AnswerThis directive preserves the program completely for adults. The only change is that when a child is involved, a judge — not a form — makes the call. That is not dismantling a safety program. That is putting the right institution in charge of the right decision. It always should have been that way.
They Say"Parental alienation is too hard to prove."
My AnswerMN Stat. 609.26 has been on the books for decades. It criminalizes the concealment of a child from a fit parent. The law exists. What has been missing is a system that requires county attorneys to respond when the evidence is there. This directive provides that requirement. The law does not change. The accountability does.
They Say"Protective orders are filed in good faith."
My AnswerMost are. This directive does not penalize a first or second filing. It identifies a pattern — multiple dismissed filings, timed to delay opposing court actions, across jurisdictions — and names it for what it is. Good faith filings are not dismissed repeatedly for lack of evidence. Patterns are not good faith. They are strategy.
They Say"Military absence affects the parent-child bond. Courts have to weigh it."
My AnswerA parent who is deployed did not choose to leave their children. The United States government sent them. Minnesota cannot send people to serve and then use that service as evidence against them in a custody proceeding. That is not a gray area. It ends with this directive.
They Say"50/50 custody ignores the best interests of the child."
My AnswerThe research is clear: children do best with access to both parents. A presumption of equal parenting time is not a deviation from the child's best interest — it is the child's best interest. The burden should be on the state to show why a child should be denied a parent. Not on a parent to prove they deserve their own child.
The Resident Solution Fund

How This
Gets Paid For

This directive does not require a new tax. It requires the will to allocate existing and incoming resources toward the people they were always supposed to serve.

01
Resident Solution Fund
Funds recovered through the forensic audit initiated under Directive 01 — from agency mismanagement, inflated contracts, and misspent appropriations — are directed toward the Office of Parental Rights and the legal representation pipeline.
02
Cannabis Tax Allocation
A portion of the 15% cannabis tax revenue established under Directive 07 is allocated to fund legal representation at point of removal and the CPS cross-reference data infrastructure. Revenue from one reform funds accountability in another.
03
Smart Reallocation
It is less expensive to provide a parent with a lawyer and keep a family intact than to place a child in foster care. The math is not complicated. Providing a parent counsel at point of removal costs a fraction of the ongoing cost of a child in state care.

This Governor will not cut the foster care program. Children in care will be protected. What this directive does is reduce the pipeline of children who should never have entered that system in the first place — because a fit parent had no lawyer, no hearing, and no independent advocate in the room when the state moved against them.

Executive Order 27-02 — Family Rights & Parental Sovereignty Ready for Signature · Day One
STATE OF MINNESOTA Executive Department
Executive Order 27-02
Family Rights & Parental Sovereignty — Establishing Standards for Child Removal, Custody Equity, Parental Due Process, Alienation Enforcement, Vexatious Filing Accountability, and Military Parent Protection
GovernorTom Berhane
DateJanuary 4, 2027
StatusDraft — Legal Review Pending
Directive02 of 13
Whereas
The Governor of Minnesota is vested with supervisory authority over the Department of Human Services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 256.01, and with executive authority to direct state agencies under Article V, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution;
Whereas
Minnesota Statutes chapter 260C governs child protection proceedings and Minnesota Statutes section 260.012 mandates reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families before and after removal — a mandate that has not been consistently enforced;
Whereas
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 5B and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8290 govern the Safe at Home address confidentiality program, and those provisions currently permit the enrollment of minor children based solely on a self-reported statement of fear, without judicial oversight or evidentiary corroboration, for a period of four years renewable indefinitely on the same basis;
Whereas
Minnesota Statutes section 609.26 makes it a criminal offense to conceal a minor child from a parent with intent to deprive that parent of parental rights, or to retain a minor child in violation of a court order — yet county attorneys have routinely declined to pursue documented violations of this statute in family court contexts;
Whereas
Minnesota Statutes section 609.507 prohibits false reporting, and a pattern of multiple protective orders or CPS complaints filed by the same party against the same individual — each dismissed for lack of evidence and each timed to coincide with opposing court filings — may constitute systematic abuse of legal process;
Whereas
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution guarantee that no person shall be deprived of liberty — including the fundamental right to parent one's children — without due process of law;
Whereas
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq., provides baseline protections for active duty servicemembers in civil proceedings, and Minnesota executive policy must ensure that military service and deployment are not treated as evidence of parental abandonment or unfitness in any proceeding under state authority;
Whereas
The systematic failure of Minnesota's family court and child protection systems to protect the rights of fit parents causes documented financial, psychological, and in the most severe cases lethal harm — harm that this administration is committed to ending;
Now Therefore, I, Tom Berhane, Governor of the State of Minnesota, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of this state, do hereby order as follows:
Burden of Proof Before Child Removal

The Department of Human Services shall, within 60 days of this order, adopt and publish a written standard requiring that non-emergency child removal be based on a documented finding of imminent physical harm to the child. Predictive risk scores, subjective assessments, and unverified allegations do not constitute sufficient basis for removal. This standard shall be incorporated into DHS agency policy, county child protection protocols, and caseworker training, and shall be made publicly available on the DHS website.

72-Hour Judicial Hearing Requirement

For purposes of this order, an emergency removal is one in which a child faces immediate, documented physical danger at the time of removal — including situations involving law enforcement response to an active scene, visible injury, or credible imminent threat requiring action before a court order can be obtained. All other removals are non-emergency removals.

Both tracks go before a judge. This order guarantees that for non-emergency removals, that judicial review happens within 72 hours — not weeks or months later. Any non-emergency removal of a child from a parent triggers a mandatory judicial hearing within 72 hours of removal. At that hearing, the state bears the burden of demonstrating imminent physical harm by clear and convincing evidence. Absent that showing, the child shall be returned to the parent. DHS and the Office of Justice Programs shall develop the procedural framework for compliance within 60 days. No county exceptions. No continuances without cause shown to the presiding judge.

Legal Representation at the Moment of Removal

DHS shall coordinate with the Minnesota Board of Legal Aid and the State Public Defender's Office to establish a program ensuring parents receive appointed legal representation at the time of removal initiation — not at the first hearing, at the moment the state moves against them. Funding shall be drawn from allocated state resources and a portion of cannabis tax revenue pursuant to Directive 07, with additional support from the Resident Solution Fund established under Executive Order 27-01.

Establishment of the Office of Parental Rights

There is hereby established within the Office of the Governor an independent Office of Parental Rights. This office receives and investigates complaints regarding DHS actions, county child protection workers, Guardian ad Litem conduct, vexatious filing patterns, and Safe at Home enrollment disputes involving minor children. It reports findings publicly, is not housed within DHS, and is not subject to DHS supervision. It has authority to recommend corrective action and refer matters for prosecution.

Safe at Home — Child Enrollment and Renewal Reform

The Secretary of State is directed to amend Safe at Home program policies under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8290 so that when a minor child is enrolled as a program participant, the program shall require either: (a) an emergency judicial order authorizing enrollment, obtained within 72 hours of the enrollment request; or (b) a police report documenting the alleged threat, dated no more than 48 hours prior to enrollment.

The initial certification period for enrolled minor children is reduced to 90 days, during which the enrolling parent must obtain a family court order authorizing continued enrollment. Renewal of child enrollment requires a current, active court order authorizing continued concealment — not a re-certification form. This order does not affect enrollment of adults who have no shared minor children with another legal parent.

Presumptive Equal Parenting Time

It is the executive policy of the State of Minnesota that parenting time shall be presumed equal between fit parents in all DHS-administered and court-adjacent processes subject to this Governor's supervisory authority. Deviation from equal parenting time requires specific documented findings of demonstrated danger. Gender shall not be a factor in any custody-related determination made under DHS or OJP authority. This policy aligns with MN SF4343 (94th Legislature) and shall be incorporated into all relevant DHS and OJP training and operational guidance within 90 days.

Parental Alienation — Mandatory County Attorney Referral

The Attorney General shall issue guidance directing that documented violations of MN Stat. 609.26 — including concealment of a minor child from a fit parent and failure to return a minor child in violation of a court order — are referred by the family court to the county attorney for prosecutorial review. The county attorney shall respond within 30 days with either: (a) charges filed, or (b) a written explanation of why charges were not pursued. That written explanation is a public record subject to review by the Office of Parental Rights.

Verified parental alienation shall also be grounds for mandatory reunification therapy ordered at the alienating parent's expense, formal contempt proceedings, and judicial review of the existing custody arrangement. A second documented violation triggers automatic contempt referral without further judicial discretion.

Vexatious Filing Accountability

When a party has filed three or more protective orders or CPS complaints against the same individual — each dismissed for lack of evidence — the court or DHS shall automatically refer the matter to the Office of Parental Rights. Upon a finding of vexatious filing, consequences include attorney fee shifting to the filing party, a rebuttable presumption against the filing party's credibility in future custody proceedings, and referral to the county attorney for review under MN Stat. 609.507.

CPS-Court Filing Cross-Reference Protocol

DHS shall implement a cross-reference protocol within 90 days: CPS reports filed within 30 days of a scheduled family court hearing or an opposing party's active court filing shall be flagged and the timing documented. Flagged reports are reviewed by the Office of Parental Rights as part of any pattern review. This order does not prevent legitimate safety reporting — it creates accountability for reports filed as litigation strategy.

Interstate Pattern Coordination

The Attorney General's office shall, within 120 days, establish coordination procedures under applicable Interstate Compact frameworks to identify cross-state patterns of dismissed protective filings involving the same parties and minor children. Jurisdiction-hopping to file protective orders shall be treated as part of a unified pattern for purposes of vexatious filing review — not as isolated incidents in separate states.

Military Parent Protection

No Minnesota court proceeding, DHS determination, or administrative action under this Governor's supervisory authority shall treat a parent's active duty military service, deployment, or any period of reduced parental contact resulting from military orders as evidence of abandonment of parental rights, lack of parental bonding, or parental unfitness. DHS shall update all relevant training materials and operational guidance within 90 days. This protection applies to any ongoing proceeding in which military service has been cited as a negative factor.

Guardian ad Litem Reform

Pursuant to MN Stat. 260C.163, DHS and the State Court Administrator's Office shall establish licensing requirements, mandatory training standards, and a formal disciplinary review process for all Guardians ad Litem operating in Minnesota family courts. The Office of Parental Rights is authorized to receive and investigate complaints regarding GAL conduct.

Nonprofit Compliance Audit

DHS and the Office of Inspector General shall conduct a full compliance audit of all nonprofits receiving state appropriations that operate in child welfare, family court, or parental services settings. The audit shall verify compliance with parental rights protections and active court orders. Any organization found facilitating violations of parental rights or court orders shall have state funding suspended immediately pending remediation.

No Financial Incentives for Removal

DHS shall review and reform all county funding formulas to eliminate any financial incentive tied to child removal volume. Counties shall not receive state funds in a manner that rewards removal rates. DHS shall report to the Governor within 90 days on the existing structure and a corrected framework.

Public Data & Transparency

DHS shall publish quarterly reports — in plain language accessible to all Minnesota residents — on child removal rates, reunification timelines, and outcomes data disaggregated by county, race, and income level. Posted to a publicly accessible state website. No paywall. No restriction. The public can see what is happening. That visibility is the accountability.

Effective Date & Implementation

This Executive Order is effective immediately upon signing and shall remain in effect for the duration of this administration, or until superseded by statute establishing equivalent or greater protections. Agency heads shall submit implementation plans to the Governor's Office within 30 days of signing. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish protections for children who are confirmed victims of abuse or neglect. The reforms in this order protect children by requiring proof — not by removing accountability.

A determination that any provision of this Executive Order is invalid will not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this Executive Order. Rather, the invalid provision will be modified to the extent necessary so that it is enforceable.
______________________________
Tom Berhane
Governor, State of Minnesota
Signed January 4, 2027
______________________________
[Secretary of State]
Secretary of State, State of Minnesota
Filed According to Law
Stand With This Directive

There are children in Minnesota who ask about a parent they have not seen in years. That parent never stopped trying. This directive is for them. Be part of the coalition that makes it law on day one.

Join The Resident Solution →
This Is
Directive 02

There are children in Minnesota who ask about a parent they haven't seen in years. That parent never stopped trying. This does not fix what was taken. Nothing does. What it does is make sure the next parent — the next family — has a system that works for them instead of against them. That starts on day one.

Stand With The Resident Solution
The Resident Solution Campaign  ·  Minnesota  ·  Directive 02 of 13