In re Welfare of Children of K. M. C.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. M. C., K. W. C. and T. J. K., Parents.

A20-1508

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

May 24, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Affirmed

Frisch, Judge

St. Louis County District Court

File No. 69DU-JV-19-925

Bill L. Thompson, Duluth, Minnesota (for appellant K.M.C.)

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Benjamin J. Ranallo, Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Department)

Kirsten Hambleton, Superior, Wisconsin (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FRISCH, Judge

Appellant mother challenges the involuntary termination of her parental rights, arguing that the county failed to make reasonable reunification efforts and that termination was not in the best interests of her children. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant K.M.C. (mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to four of her minor children: child 1, born in 2009; child 2, born in 2013; child 3, born in 2017; and child 4, born in 2019.¹ Following a three-day trial, the district court found three statutory grounds for termination, that termination was in the best interests of the children, and that the county made reasonable reunification efforts. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(2), (5), (8), 7, 8(1) (2020). We summarize the record as follows.

Reports to Social Services

On April 21, 2018, respondent St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Department (the county) received a report that child 1 was truant. On May 4, upon returning from mother's home to discuss the initial report, the social worker learned of another report that child 1 and child 2 had been breaking windows in neighboring houses, that child 1 was not in school, and that child 3 was observed in a diaper heavy with urine and feces. The social worker was unable to reach mother to discuss the allegations until he found her at the children's grandmother's home on May 15, with all of her children, including the ones that should have been at school. On August 9, the county received a third report that child 1 and child 2 often roamed unsupervised in the neighborhood and had egged a house recently and that child 3 was crawling over the garbage that covered the floor of the children's home.

On August 15, Becky Lonetto, a social worker assigned for a family assessment, met with mother to explain age-appropriate supervision for the children, to describe various resources available to assist mother, and to assist mother in accessing those resources. Upon learning mother was pregnant, Lonetto offered to connect mother with services to support her through a healthy pregnancy. Lonetto agreed to call mother the following week to further discuss her housing plans. Lonetto in fact called mother as scheduled, but mother's phone was disconnected.

On August 31, Lonetto learned that child 2 had received stitches after falling out of a second-floor window. Lonetto called mother to check on the family, offer continued support, and discuss mother's plans to secure housing. Mother did not respond. The county later learned that a bystander, not mother, had called 911 and that emergency responders became concerned when mother attempted to take child 2 back into a hotel room where the family was temporarily residing rather than seek emergency treatment for the child. On September 4, Lonetto again offered to connect mother with supportive services, including respite care.

On September 18, Lonetto conducted an unannounced home visit and discovered that the school-age children were not in school. Lonetto observed child 3 repeatedly eat old food off of the floor. Mother reported child 1 was sent home from school due to having head lice. Lonetto explained the importance of school for children and encouraged mother to work with Family Support Services to assist her in obtaining permanent housing.

Also in September 2018, mother transferred the school-age children to a school several towns away from where they were then residing. The county received additionalreports of the children's absenteeism in October and November. On November 14, Lonetto conducted another unannounced home visit, where mother continuously alluded to having suicidal thoughts but rejected all mental-health services offered to her. During the visit and in the presence of child 3, mother and her mother screamed at each other, and Lonetto made several attempts to separate the fighting adults. Mother also informed Lonetto that she did not bring the children in for their annual medical visits. Mother observed what she believed to be signs of autism in child 2 and ADHD in child 1, but she admitted that she did not seek medical care to address these concerns. Mother repeatedly refused services throughout the meeting while acknowledging that she was overwhelmed and struggling with suicidal thoughts.

On November 15, school staff contacted Lonetto to report concerns about child 1 and child 2. As to child 1, school staff reported that he had worn the same clothing four days in a row, that he had a significant itchy rash since starting school that was growing worse, and that he could no longer be in school until staff received documentation confirming that the rash was not contagious. As to child 2, school staff reported that they were unable to complete his kindergarten and individualized education plan (IEP) screenings due to his poor attendance and mother's failure to complete the required paperwork and that child 2 had failed his hearing and vision screenings. Staff also reported that both children continued to have problematic attendance.

That same day, Lonetto met with child 1 and child 2 at school, observed them in dirty clothes with disheveled hair, and saw that child 1 had open sores, scratches, and dried blood on his arms. She observed child 1 scratch his body to the point where his leg bledand noticed consistent marks on his arms, legs, stomach, back, and hands, as well as dried blood under his fingernails. Child 1 reported feeling unsafe in the home and complained that the family was always fighting. Lonetto noted that child 2 had a severe speech impediment and was unable to follow the conversation.

On November 19 and 28, Lonetto conducted additional unannounced home visits and both times found that none of the children were in school. During the latter visit, mother reported that the children were not in school because she could not afford gas and that she often kept the children home to babysit each other. Mother claimed to have taken child 1 to a doctor for his rash and reported that his doctor advised her that the rash was fine and that she could continue treatment with cream. But she refused to show Lonetto documentation of the medical visit. Lonetto observed child 3 in a saggy and smelly diaper with a red rash across his cheeks. Lonetto advised mother that the county was going to pursue a petition for children in need of protection or services (CHIPS) due to the children's ongoing educational neglect, child 1's unmet medical needs, concerns about mother's mental health, and mother's refusal to engage in any voluntary services. Mother responded that the family would move out of the county before it could take any action.

On December 5, Lonetto received notice from the school that the school-age children continued to miss school, that child 2 needed speech services and an IEP but mother had failed to return the required paperwork and had missed a meeting scheduled to discuss these needs, and that mother had not provided any medical documentation relating to child 1's rash. On December 10, Lonetto conducted another unannounced home visitand found the school-aged children were not in school and noted a strong odor of feces and cat urine in the home.

Removal of Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 from the Home

The county filed a CHIPS petition, and on January 2, 2019, the district court ordered that child 1, child 2, and child 3 be placed in the temporary custody of the county. After the children were removed from the home, the county discovered the children had scabies and severe lice. The supervised visitation center would not accommodate visits until the entire household provided medical documentation showing the absence of scabies and lice, so the county arranged for supervised interim visits at the government-services building.

On January 29, mother signed a reunification plan, which required mother to (1) complete a diagnostic assessment, follow all recommendations, and demonstrate effective coping skills; (2) submit to urinalysis drug testing at the county's discretion; (3) complete a parenting class; (4) obtain and maintain safe and stable housing; (5) demonstrate the ability to meet the children's health, safety, educational, and supervision needs; (6) cooperate with social workers and sign any requested releases; (7) attend all scheduled parenting visits; and (8) provide the county with access to her home.

On March 20, Steven Moodie, a St. Louis County social worker, reported to the court that child 1 had been referred for individual therapy, child 2 had been referred to a food clinic, and child 3 had been referred for speech therapy and optometry services. Moodie also noted mother's opposition to the children receiving these services. He also reported that mother had failed to make any progress in her reunification plan, despite thechildren being in out-of-home placement for 77 days. Specifically, mother had not started parenting classes, refused to sign a safety agreement and releases, and was not attending the children's appointments. Moodie had also learned of concerns regarding the lack of supervision of the children and cleanliness of the home when they lived out of state and that child 3 had tested positive for opiates at birth and missed his first...