of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Minnesota law addresses situations where an individual allegedly attempts to avoid legal responsibility for fatherhood by leaving the state. The crime of Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity, defined under Minnesota Statutes § 609.31, specifically targets the act of departing Minnesota with the intention of thwarting legal proceedings designed to determine paternity. This law recognizes the potential for individuals to flee the jurisdiction to avoid the legal and financial obligations that come with being legally declared a father, such as child support. It aims to prevent such evasion by criminalizing the flight itself when done with the required intent and knowledge.
This offense is distinct from simply failing to pay child support after paternity has been established. Instead, § 609.31 focuses on the earlier stage – the attempt to prevent paternity from being legally determined in the first place. The statute requires proof of a specific mindset: the person must leave Minnesota specifically intending to dodge paternity proceedings, and they must do so knowing that the woman with whom they had intercourse is pregnant or has very recently given birth. Accusations under this statute can lead to serious felony charges, highlighting the importance of understanding the law and securing legal counsel if facing such allegations.
Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity, under Minnesota Statute § 609.31, is a specific intent crime. It involves more than just moving out of Minnesota after having sexual intercourse with someone who becomes pregnant or gives birth. The core of the offense lies in the reason for leaving: the individual must depart the state with the specific intent to avoid legal proceedings aimed at establishing their paternity. This means the prosecution must prove the person’s primary motivation for leaving was to escape the legal process of being declared the father and the responsibilities that follow, such as child support obligations established through court or administrative action.
Furthermore, the statute sets forth specific conditions regarding the individual’s knowledge and the timing relative to the pregnancy or birth. The person must leave the state knowing that the woman with whom they had sexual intercourse is either currently pregnant or has given birth to a living child within the preceding 60 days. This knowledge element is critical. Simply leaving the state without awareness of the pregnancy or recent birth, or leaving for reasons unrelated to evading paternity (like a pre-planned job transfer or family emergency), would not meet the requirements of this particular criminal statute, even if the departure makes subsequent paternity proceedings more complicated.
The crime of Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity is codified under Minnesota Statutes § 609.31. This section defines the specific act of leaving Minnesota with the intent to avoid paternity proceedings under circumstances where the individual knows the woman involved is pregnant or has recently given birth. It also specifies the potential felony penalty associated with this offense.
Here is the text of Minnesota Statutes § 609.31 as provided:
609.31 LEAVING STATE TO EVADE ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY.
Whoever with intent to evade proceedings to establish his paternity leaves the state knowing that a woman with whom he has had sexual intercourse is pregnant or has given birth within the previous 60 days to a living child may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both.
To obtain a conviction for Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity under Minnesota Statute § 609.31, the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The crime requires demonstrating not only the physical act of leaving Minnesota but also establishing the defendant’s specific intent and knowledge regarding the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy or birth. Failure to prove any one of these distinct elements would necessitate an acquittal.
The essential elements the prosecution must establish are:
Minnesota Statute § 609.31 specifies the potential penalties for a person convicted of leaving the state with the intent to evade the establishment of paternity under the defined circumstances. The consequences reflect the seriousness with which the state views attempts to shirk potential parental responsibilities through flight from the jurisdiction. Understanding the potential sentence is crucial for anyone facing charges under this statute.
The statute explicitly states that a person convicted of violating § 609.31 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both. Under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 609.02, Subd. 2), any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year is classified as a felony. Therefore, leaving the state to evade the establishment of paternity is a felony offense in Minnesota, carrying significant potential consequences including prison time, substantial fines, and the lasting impact of a felony conviction on one’s record.
The core of the crime defined in § 609.31 lies in the defendant’s specific intent at the time they leave Minnesota. It’s not simply about moving away after a relationship that resulted in pregnancy; it’s about moving away because of the pregnancy or recent birth and in order to avoid legal proceedings related to becoming the legally recognized father. Proving this subjective intent, along with the defendant’s knowledge of the pregnancy or recent birth, is often the central challenge in prosecuting these cases.
Examining hypothetical scenarios can help illustrate the types of situations where charges under § 609.31 might arise. These examples focus on demonstrating evidence that could suggest the required intent and knowledge, distinguishing these situations from merely relocating for unrelated reasons, which would not constitute this specific crime even if it complicates later paternity actions. Remember, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements is required for conviction.
A man learns his recent partner is pregnant. He tells a friend he “can’t handle being tied down” and is leaving Minnesota so he “won’t get stuck paying child support.” He quits his job without notice and moves to another state, cutting off contact with the pregnant woman. His statement to the friend could be used as direct evidence of his intent to evade paternity proceedings. He left the state knowing she was pregnant after having sexual intercourse with her.
This scenario strongly suggests the elements are met. The key is the evidence (the friend’s testimony about the statement) showing his reason for leaving was specifically to avoid the consequences of paternity.
A woman gives birth to a child. The man she identifies as the father had intercourse with her during the conception period. Within a week of the birth (well within the 60-day window), the man suddenly moves out of his Minnesota apartment without informing the mother or his employer and relocates out of state. He was aware of the birth. The abruptness and secrecy of the move, coupled with the timing right after the birth he knew about, could be used as circumstantial evidence of intent to evade paternity establishment.
While perhaps lacking a direct statement of intent, the timing and manner of leaving the state could lead a fact-finder to infer the necessary intent, assuming the elements of knowledge and prior intercourse are also proven.
A man receives formal notice (e.g., a summons and petition) initiating paternity proceedings in Minnesota court. Within days of receiving this notice, he sells his belongings, quits his job, and moves to a state with which he has no prior connection. He left the state after intercourse and knowing about the pregnancy/birth (implied by the proceedings). The timing of his departure immediately following receipt of legal notice strongly indicates his intent was to evade those specific proceedings.
Here, the act of leaving immediately after being served with legal papers related to paternity provides compelling circumstantial evidence of the required intent under § 609.31.
A couple has sexual intercourse. The woman later confirms she is pregnant and informs the man. The man, expressing anxiety about potential fatherhood and child support, researches jobs in another state and quickly accepts an offer, moving shortly thereafter without discussing plans for the child. He left the state knowing she was pregnant after their intercourse. His expressed anxiety and rapid relocation after learning of the pregnancy could be presented as evidence of his intent to evade future paternity proceedings, even if none had formally started yet.
This example highlights that formal proceedings don’t need to be pending. Leaving with the intent to evade potential future proceedings, based on knowledge of the pregnancy, can fulfill the intent element.
Being charged with Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity under § 609.31 is a serious felony accusation in Minnesota. However, the prosecution faces the significant challenge of proving the defendant’s subjective intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, in addition to the physical act of leaving the state. An individual facing these charges has the right to mount a defense challenging the state’s evidence on any or all of the required elements. Several potential defenses may be available depending on the specific facts of the situation.
Developing an effective defense strategy requires a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s departure from Minnesota. This includes gathering evidence about the reasons for the move, assessing what the defendant knew about the pregnancy or birth and when they knew it, and examining the nature of the relationship and timing of events. An attorney can analyze the prosecution’s case for weaknesses and assert defenses aimed at demonstrating that the state cannot meet its high burden of proof for this specific intent crime.
This defense directly attacks the core mental state element, arguing the defendant left Minnesota for reasons completely unrelated to avoiding paternity establishment.
This defense challenges the element requiring the defendant to know about the pregnancy or recent birth (within 60 days) at the time they left the state.
This defense challenges the fundamental factual premises of the charge.
This defense argues that the prosecution simply lacks sufficient credible evidence to prove one or more of the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
It prohibits leaving Minnesota with the specific intent to avoid legal proceedings to establish paternity, provided the person knows the woman they had intercourse with is pregnant or gave birth within the previous 60 days.
No. Moving out of state is generally not illegal. This crime requires the specific intent to leave in order to evade paternity proceedings, coupled with knowledge of the pregnancy or recent birth. Leaving for legitimate reasons like a job or family is not a crime under this statute.
It means the person’s primary purpose or motivation for leaving Minnesota was to dodge or obstruct the legal process (court or administrative) used to determine legal fatherhood and associated responsibilities like child support.
Proving intent can be challenging. Evidence might include the defendant’s statements to others, the timing of the departure relative to learning about the pregnancy or legal action, efforts to conceal whereabouts, lack of other legitimate reasons for moving, or prior actions showing reluctance to accept responsibility.
Lack of knowledge is a valid defense. The statute specifically requires that the person leave the state knowing the woman is pregnant or has given birth within the past 60 days. If you were unaware, you cannot be guilty under § 609.31.
The statute applies if the person leaves knowing the woman is pregnant OR knowing she gave birth to a living child within the previous 60 days. If the birth was more than 60 days prior to departure, this specific condition of the statute isn’t met.
This likely includes formal court actions filed to establish paternity and potentially administrative processes initiated through county child support offices or the Minnesota Department of Human Services aimed at establishing paternity and support orders.
Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity under § 609.31 is a felony in Minnesota, as the maximum potential sentence is two years imprisonment (any crime punishable by over one year is a felony).
A conviction carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison and/or a fine of up to $4,000. Actual sentences depend on criminal history and specific case factors.
No. Failure to pay child support (Minn. Stat. § 609.375) is a separate crime that applies after paternity and a support order have already been established. Section 609.31 applies before paternity is established, targeting the act of fleeing to prevent that determination.
Yes. The crime is completed at the time the person leaves the state with the required intent and knowledge. Returning later does not undo the offense, although it might be considered during plea negotiations or sentencing.
While DNA proof of non-paternity would be crucial in the underlying paternity case itself, its effect on a charge under § 609.31 is complex. The statute requires prior intercourse, not proven paternity. However, if non-paternity strongly suggests the defendant knew they couldn’t be the father, it might undermine the prosecution’s ability to prove the defendant left with the intent to evade proceedings related to their own paternity. It could be a powerful defense point regarding intent.
The statute uses the pronoun “his” (“establish his paternity”). While paternity proceedings typically involve identifying the father, the language focuses on the person leaving the state after intercourse. Legal interpretation might be needed for less common scenarios, but it’s primarily aimed at biological fathers evading responsibility.
Yes. Because it is a felony offense, Minnesota can seek extradition from another state to bring a defendant back to face charges under § 609.31.
If you believe you may be under investigation or could be charged under this statute, you should contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately. Do not speak with law enforcement without legal counsel. An attorney can advise you on your rights and options.
A conviction for Leaving State to Evade Establishment of Paternity under § 609.31 is a felony, and as such, carries significant and lasting consequences beyond potential imprisonment or fines. These impacts can affect various areas of a person’s life for years to come.
Perhaps the most significant long-term impact is the acquisition of a felony criminal record. This record is public and can be accessed through background checks used for employment, housing, professional licensing, loans, and even volunteer opportunities. Having a felony conviction, regardless of the specific crime, creates substantial barriers and stigmas. It can lead to automatic disqualifications and limit opportunities significantly, making it difficult to secure good jobs or stable housing long after the sentence is completed.
While a conviction under § 609.31 does not legally establish paternity itself, it can certainly be used negatively against the individual in subsequent family court proceedings regarding paternity, child custody, or child support. The finding that the person intentionally fled the state to avoid responsibility could damage their credibility and potentially influence a judge’s decisions regarding custody, parenting time, or the enforcement of support orders once paternity is established through other means (like DNA testing or default orders).
As mentioned, a felony conviction poses a major obstacle to employment. Many employers have policies against hiring individuals with felony records, particularly for positions involving trust, finance, or working with vulnerable populations. The specific nature of this crime – evading parental responsibility – might also raise character concerns for potential employers. Difficulty finding stable, well-paying work is a common long-term consequence for those with felony convictions, impacting financial stability and career progression.
If sentenced to probation instead of prison, or released on parole after serving time, the individual will be subject to various conditions and restrictions. These often include limitations on travel, potentially requiring permission from a probation officer to leave the county or state again. Regular check-ins, potential drug testing, maintaining employment, and adhering to all court orders (including any eventual child support orders) are typical requirements. Violating these conditions can lead to revocation of probation/parole and imprisonment.
The crime defined by § 609.31 hinges critically on the prosecution’s ability to prove the defendant’s subjective state of mind: the specific intent to evade paternity proceedings and knowledge of the pregnancy or recent birth. These elements are often the most challenging for the state to prove directly. A defense attorney meticulously scrutinizes the evidence presented for intent and knowledge – analyzing the timing of events, the context of the defendant’s departure, any statements made, and the credibility of witnesses providing such information. Crafting a defense often involves presenting alternative narratives and evidence that demonstrate a lack of evasive intent or knowledge, raising reasonable doubt about these crucial mental state elements.
A key aspect of defending against § 609.31 charges involves thoroughly investigating and documenting the defendant’s actual reasons for leaving Minnesota. This goes beyond simply denying evasive intent; it requires actively gathering proof of the legitimate purpose behind the move. An attorney can help collect evidence such as job offer letters, school acceptance documents, lease agreements in the new state, travel records showing pre-planned trips, medical records related to family emergencies, or witness testimony confirming the move was for reasons unrelated to the pregnancy. Establishing a credible, independent reason for relocation is often the most effective way to counter the allegation of specific intent to evade paternity.
Charges under § 609.31 exist at the intersection of criminal law and family law. While the criminal charge focuses on the act of leaving the state with specific intent, it is inextricably linked to potential or pending paternity and child support matters in family court. An attorney handling a § 609.31 case must understand this interplay. They need to consider how the criminal case outcome might affect future family court proceedings and vice versa. This includes advising the client on potential Fifth Amendment issues (right against self-incrimination) if testifying in one case could impact the other, and coordinating legal strategies if separate family law counsel is involved.
Facing a felony charge under § 609.31 carries serious potential consequences, including prison time and a permanent felony record. A criminal defense attorney provides crucial advocacy throughout the process. This includes challenging the prosecution’s case at every stage, negotiating with the prosecutor for potential charge reductions (e.g., to a misdemeanor) or dismissal if the evidence is weak, and, if conviction occurs, presenting compelling arguments for the most lenient sentence possible. Effective sentencing advocacy involves highlighting mitigating factors, presenting evidence of rehabilitation or positive life changes, and arguing for alternatives to incarceration like probation, especially if the defendant has taken steps to address paternity and support issues.
