In re Welfare of S. A. K.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. K., Parent.

A20-1489

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

May 10, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Affirmed

Slieter, Judge

Koochiching County District Court

File No. 36-JV-20-442

Kimberly A. Wimmer, Wimmer Law Office, PLLC, Littlefork, Minnesota (for appellant-mother S.A.K.)

Jeffrey Naglosky, Koochiching County Attorney, Molly J. French, Assistant County Attorney, International Falls, Minnesota (for respondent Koochiching County Public Health and Human Services)

Alexis Peterson, Marcell, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SLIETER, Judge

Appellant-mother challenges the involuntary termination of her parental rights, arguing that the county failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the statutory bases for termination, that termination was not in the child's best interests, and that the district court violated her due-process rights. The county's efforts to reunite the family were reasonable, at least one statutory basis for termination was present, and termination was in the child's best interests. Additionally, the process to which mother was due was provided. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant-mother S.A.K. is the parent of the child, who was born in 2016. Koochiching County first received reports of improper treatment in 2016, including reports that mother had been using THC while breastfeeding and did not have stable housing. The county became formally involved with the family in September 2018, when mother returned to Minnesota after spending several months "camping" with the child across several states and the county received a report that the child tested positive for THC. Upon their return to Minnesota, it was reported that the child was not receiving proper care. The county filed a petition alleging the child to be a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS), pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2020), and the district court signed an emergency ex parte order removing the child from mother's custody on September 11, 2018. The child was returned to mother's care on October 31, 2018, following mother's admission to the CHIPS petition and agreement to follow a court-ordered case plan. However, the child was again removed from mother's care on February 14, 2019, after the district court found that mother did not have stable housing. The motel at which she and the child had been residing had filed an eviction action against mother as a result of non-payment of rent.

On June 26, 2019, following limited compliance by mother with her case plan and receiving multiple criminal charges including vehicle safety infractions, failure to register her vehicle, and contempt, the county filed the first of two termination of parental rights(TPR) petitions. Following a three-day court trial in August 2019, the district court dismissed the first TPR petition, concluding that mother had "begun to comply with parts of the case plan . . . including beginning to treat her mental health and finding suitable and sustainable housing." The district court found that the child was still in need of protection or services, but that "further efforts may correct" the existing issues. The district court ordered that a trial home visit could begin after mother had successfully begun supervised visitation, had "at least 2 additional therapy sessions with her treating counselor(s)," and after "a short visit of the . . . mother's home by the child and others chosen by the [county]." The child was returned to mother's care in December 2019.

The child was again removed from mother's care on April 2, 2020, after the social worker was made aware of a number of new incidents involving mother and law enforcement, some of which resulted in new criminal charges. The second termination petition was filed July 21, 2020. Mother denied this termination petition, which proceeded to trial.

During the second TPR trial, the district court heard testimony from numerous individuals, including the county social worker, the child's guardian ad litem (GAL), mother's therapist, and mother. The district court terminated mother's parental rights to the child, finding the agency made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and the child, termination was justified under all three statutory bases set forth in the termination petition, and termination was in the best interests of the child. Mother appeals.

DECISION

Appellate courts affirm a district court's termination of parental rights if (1) the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, (2) one or more statutory basis for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) termination is in the child's best interests. See In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). We defer to the district court's decision to terminate parental rights if all the above statutory requirements for termination are met. See In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 662 (Minn. App. 2018).

In reviewing a district court's decision to terminate parental rights, we apply a two-part standard of review under which we review a district court's "findings of basic or underlying fact[s] . . . for clear error," but review "'ultimate facts' and 'mixed questions of law and fact' (both often stated in 'the trial court's conclusions of law') . . . for an abuse of discretion." In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417, 423-24 (Minn. 2006), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). A district court abuses its discretion if it resolves the discretionary question in a manner "that is against logic and the facts on record." Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).

Mother does not clearly articulate whether she appeals because of the district court's findings of fact being clearly erroneous or because the district court's findings as to "ultimate facts" and its conclusions are the result of an abuse of discretion. As to either basis, we have reviewed the record to determine that the factual findings of the districtcourt are not clearly erroneous and its findings as to "ultimate facts" and its conclusions are not an abuse of discretion.

I. The district court did not clearly err by finding that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and the child.

When a child is removed from the family home, the responsible social services agency must make "reasonable efforts" to reunify the parent(s) and child. Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2020).

When determining whether reasonable efforts have been made, the court shall consider whether services to the child and family were:

(1) relevant to the safety and protection of the child;

(2) adequate to meet the needs of the child and family;

(3) culturally appropriate;

(4) available and accessible;

(5) consistent and timely; and

(6) realistic under the circumstances.

Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (1)-(6) (2020). "The county's efforts must assist in alleviating the conditions that gave rise to the dependency adjudication." In re Welfare of H.K., 455 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1990). "Whether the county has met its duty of reasonable efforts requires consideration of the length of the time the county was involved and the quality of effort given." Id. A district court's decision that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2015).

Mother argues that such efforts "simply did not happen." The record belies this claim. The court-ordered case plan required mother to meet, among all other requirements,three key components: (1) remain law-abiding; (2) maintain stable and appropriate housing; and (3) address her mental health, specifically directing mother to participate in "dialectical behavior therapy" (DBT). Mother complied with the second component but not the other two. The district court's findings reflect that mother's underlying mental-health condition was primarily responsible for the issues preventing mother from reunifying with her child.

The district court found that "the [county] ha[d] expended reasonable efforts towards reunification with mother, even though mother ha[d] repeatedly made it clear that she did not intend to work cooperatively with the [county]." (emphasis added). The record supports this finding. This court must consider "the quality of effort given." H.K., 455 N.W.2d at 532. In this case, the quality of effort was both sufficient and reasonable. The GAL had been in contact with mother's therapist to coordinate therapy and the social worker had communicated and coordinated with mother's Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services (ARMHS) workers. The ARMHS workers assisted mother to assure payment of her bills, assure she had transportation (including paying for car fuel), facilitated zoom visits between mother and child, and assisted mother with developing necessary daily skills. Additionally, when allegations of ongoing shoplifting by mother became known to the social worker, she offered to provide mother with assistance to purchase food and other necessities.

The record supports the district court's finding that mother failed to address the main concern—her mental health—in spite of the county's reasonable efforts. As found by the district court, mother's failure to rehabilitate her underlying mental-health issues resultedfrom mother's inability to recognize her need for treatment, which led to her failure to begin DBT treatment. Though it is undisputed that mother was regularly meeting with a therapist, she did not enroll in a DBT program and her therapist was—by his own admission—"not a DBT...