In re Welfare of Children of B. L. W., A20-1426

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. L. W., M. T. L. II, and T. B. (deceased), Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian.

A20-1426

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

April 19, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Reversed and remanded; motion denied

Reyes, Judge

Steele County District Court

File No. 74-JV-19-1488

Mallory K. Stoll, Blahnik, Prchal & Stoll, PLLC, Prior Lake, Minnesota; and

Brooke Beskau Warg, Mitchell Hamline School of Law Child Protection Clinic, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant C.W.)

Daniel A. McIntosh, Steele County Attorney, Sasha J. Henning, Assistant County Attorney, Owatonna, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Prairie County Alliance)

Thomas J. Nolan, Jr., Nolan Law Offices, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

REYES, Judge

Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying, without holding an evidentiary hearing, her motion for adoptive placement because it (1) failed to treat properly her motion and supporting documents; (2) abused its discretion by concluding that appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that the agency acted unreasonably; and (3) "abused its discretion" by concluding that appellant did not timely file her motion with an approved adoption home study. We reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant's motion for adoptive placement, and we deny as moot appellant's motion to strike.

FACTS

B.L.W. is the biological mother of K.W. and A.L. (the children). K.W.'s father is deceased, and A.L.'s putative father is M.T.L. (putative father). On October 9, 2018, the children were removed from B.L.W.'s care, adjudicated children in need of protection or services (CHIPS), and placed in foster care with G.H. and M.S. (foster parents).

On January 15, 2019, A.L.'s paternal grandmother told respondent Minnesota Prairie County Alliance (MNPrairie) of appellant C.W.'s interest in serving as a placement for the children. C.W. is A.L.'s biological great-great aunt and lives in the state of Virginia. MNPrairie did not contact C.W. Then on April 15 and 22, 2019, A.L.'s paternal grandmother again informed MNPrairie of C.W.'s interest. Over three months after first being notified of C.W.'s interest, on April 26, 2019, MNPrairie finally contacted C.W. for the first time. C.W. expressed interest in being a placement for the children.

By June 12, 2019, MNPrairie sent a request and a corrected request for a foster-care home study for C.W. through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) to the Virginia ICPC office. The Virginia ICPC office rejected both requests because MNPrairie provided insufficient documentation and closed their case on the matter. Over two months later, on August 22, 2019, the Virginia ICPC office informed MNPrairie it would need to submit a new referral packet.

From August 22, 2019, to August 24, 2019, C.W. visited the children in Minnesota and maintained weekly video phone calls thereafter. On August 23, 2019, MNPrairie filed a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition against B.L.W. and M.T.L. Upon return to Virginia, C.W. began foster-care training which she completed by October 2, 2019. The Virginia ICPC office did not receive the completed referral packet from MNPrairie until October 3, 2019.

On November 13, 2019, MNPrairie emailed the attorneys for B.L.W., M.T.L., and the guardian ad litem, explaining the ICPC process and identifying only one permanency option: the foster parents.

On the day of the TPR trial, November 18, 2019, B.L.W. and M.T.L. executed a consent-to-adopt agreement for each of the children. The consent-to-adopt agreements identified the foster parents as the prospective adoptive parents and stated, in relevant part:

If [the foster parents] do not finalize the adoption of my children within six (6) months of the execution of this consent, Minnesota Prairie County Alliance must find another adoptive parent for my children, unless the failure to finalize the adoption is not due to the action or failure to act by the prospective adoptive parent[s]. With the understanding pursuant to Minn. Stat. 260C.212 subd. 2 and Minn. Stat. 260C.605 subd. 1 family will be considered first for a proposed adoptive family.

(Emphasis added.)

The consent-to-adopt agreements also stated:

I understand that I will have no ability to name another prospective adoptive parent in the event that [the foster parents] do not adopt. With the understanding family will be considered first for a proposed adoptive family.

(Emphasis added.)

The following day, MNPrairie informed C.W. that the parents signed the consent-to-adopt agreements to move forward with a nonrelative foster-parent placement. On November 26, 2019, Virginia's ICPC office finally approved C.W.'s ICPC foster-care home-study results.

On December 16, 2019, the district court accepted B.L.W. and A.L.'s consent-to-adopt agreements and ordered the children transferred to the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services (the commissioner) for adoptive placement. The district court's order also incorporated the parties' six-month timeline with the following language: "If adoption is not finalized by the identified prospective adoptive parents, due to the prospective parents' actions, within 6 (six) months of the signing of this consent to adopt, the Commissioner or Commissioner's delegate shall pursue adoptive placement in another home considering other relatives as potential adoptive placements."

On April 1, 2020, C.W. filed a motion to intervene in the adoption proceedings, which the district court later granted in its June 25, 2020 order. The district court cancelled the postpermanency review hearing scheduled for April 29, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, instead, held the hearing on July 17, 2020, more than six months after the parties executed the consent-to-adopt agreement. At this postpermanency review hearing, the district court granted C.W.'s request for an expedited ICPC adoption home study as reflected in its June 25 order. Although the district found that MNPrairie made reasonable efforts toward finalizing adoption, MNPrairie did not request, and the district court did notmake, an express finding that the failure to finalize the adoption was not attributable to foster parents' actions or inaction.¹

On July 6, 2020, MNPrairie notified the parties that the nonrelative foster parents and the department executed a placement agreement. By July 10, 2020, MNPrairie submitted a request for an adoption home study for C.W.

On August 4, 2020, the Minnesota ICPC office received the approved adoption home study for C.W. but did not send the study to C.W., despite her requests that it do so. On August 5, 2020, C.W. filed a motion for adoptive placement with a supporting affidavit and memorandum of law. On the morning of August 6, 2020, the Minnesota ICPC office emailed the approved adoption study to C.W., which, minutes later, she filed with the district court. Less than five minutes later, MNPrairie filed a motion to dismiss C.W.'s motion, alleging that C.W. failed to timely file the adoption home study and that her submissions failed to make a prima facie showing that MNPrairie acted unreasonably in denying her requested placement.

The district court denied C.W.'s motion for adoptive placement, relying on the consent-to-adopt agreements as dispositive of the fact that MNPrairie did not act unreasonably in denying C.W.'s requested placement and concluding that C.W. did not timely file her motion with an approved adoption home study. This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. The district court erred by denying, without an evidentiary hearing, C.W.'s motion for adoptive placement because it failed to properly consider her motion and supporting documents and abused its discretion by misapplying the law.

C.W. argues that the district court erred by determining that she failed to make a prima facie showing that MNPrairie acted unreasonably because the district court (1) failed to properly consider her motion and supporting documents and (2) abused its discretion by improperly applying the law. We agree.

"Adoption is a creation of statute and therefore the [district] court's authority in matters relating to adoption is limited to the authority set forth by [the Juvenile Court Act]." In re Adoption of C.H., 554 N.W.2d 737, 740 (Minn. 1996); see Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.001-.637 (2020) (addressing adoption of children who, like those here, are under guardianship of commissioner of human service).

When the district court places a child under the commissioner's guardianship after a termination of the parental rights of that child's parents, an agency acting on behalf of the commissioner must make "reasonable efforts" to finalize an adoption. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.601, subd. 2, .605, subd. 1. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.605, subd. 1(d), "reasonable efforts" to finalize an adoption include, among other things, identifying an appropriate prospective adoptive parent based on an updated assessment of child's needs as describedin Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 2(b)², and performing an up-to-date relative search, Minn. Stat. § 260C.605, subd. 1(d)(3)(i).

A relative or foster parent who is not selected for an adoptive placement but who has a competing interest in adopting the child may, within the statutory time period, move the district court for an adoptive placement of the child. Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a). "The motion and supporting documents must make a prima facie showing that the agency has been unreasonable in failing to make the [movant's] requested adoptive placement." Id., subd. 6(b). If the district court determines that the movant's motion and supporting documents assert a prima facie case that the agency acted unreasonably in denying the movant's requested placement, "the court sha...