Title: Matter of Welfare of Kidd

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

261 N.W.2d 833 (1978) In the Matter of the WELFARE OF Richard KIDD. No. 47439. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 6, 1978. William R. Kennedy, County Public Defender, Gerard W. Snell and Warren R. *834 Sagstuen, Asst. Public Defenders, Minneapolis, for appellant. Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Gary W. Flakne, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Division, David W. Larson, Phebe S. Haugen, and Lee W. Barry, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. TODD, Justice. Diane Kidd, wife of Robert Kidd, gave birth to Richard Kidd on January 10, 1976. At that time, Diane was diagnosed as a chronic schizophrenic psychotic with a history of 17 years of treatment. The child was placed in a foster home. Robert Kidd consented to termination of his parental rights, but Diane contested such action. The trial court adopted the recommendation of the juvenile court referee and terminated Diane's parental rights. We affirm. The findings of fact of the trial court adequately summarize the necessary facts in this case. They state: Based on these facts, the trial court entered the following conclusions of law: The issue presented is whether Diane Kidd is unfit by reason of conduct arising from her mental illness so as to provide a basis for terminating her parental rights pursuant to Minnesota statute. The statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are Minn.St. 260.221, which provides in part: At issue in this case is the construction of the term "other conduct" as used in the statute. At the outset, we wish to state unequivocally that mental illness in and of itself shall not be classified as "other conduct" which will permit termination of parental rights. Rather, in each case, the actual conduct of the parent is to be evaluated to determine his or her fitness to maintain the parental relationship with the child in question so as to not be detrimental to the child. Also, this court will continue to exercise great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result in accordance with the statutory grounds. While we have not had the occasion to review a determination similar to that presented, our analysis in In re Welfare of Forrest, Minn., 246 N.W.2d 854 (1976), is applicable. In Forrest, we reviewed the refusal of the district court to terminate the parental rights of the father where the court specifically found that the father was not presently able to meet the needs of the child. The father was an alcoholic who had remained sober for a period of 13 months so as to correct the initial cause of the child's dependency. We held that the district court's findings were unclear on the crucial issue of whether the father will be able to provide proper care for the child and become a suitable custodial parent. The case was remanded for the taking of additional evidence in this regard. This court then noted as follows (Minn., 246 N.W.2d 857): At that time, we expressed an intent to rely to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent's inability to care for his or her child. In the instant matter, the record exhibits appellant's inability to recognize the needs and limitations of the infant, her ineptness with regard to the mechanical functions of a parent, and her bizarre and potentially dangerous conduct stemming from her mental illness. Also of record is unrefuted testimony of Dr. Martin Orbuch who, having had contact with appellant for substantially the duration of her illness, opined that the long-term prognosis was poor and noted that her condition had remained stable, without remission, for at least 10 to 15 years. This is in the nature of the finding we sought in the Forrest case. Appellant mistakenly argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the § 260.221(b)(4) finding inasmuch as there is no positive showing of harm to the infant. However, that statutory provision does not require a showing that harm has resulted to the infant child, but only that other conduct of the parent is likely to be detrimental to the physical or mental health of the child. The second contention of appellant is that her present inability to care for the child, based solely upon her mental illness, is not a ground for termination. She suggests that she is content for the present to allow the child to remain in the foster home. The record, however, established not only that her condition resulted in a present inability to care for her child, but also that its projected duration would result in the permanent inability as discussed in Forrest. Further, such a situation precludes the establishment of parental bonds with the child by either the natural parent or adoptive parents within the foreseeable future which we regard as detrimental to the best interests of the child. We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination that appellant's demonstrated behavior stemming from a projected permanent mental condition is "other conduct" likely to be detrimental to the health and welfare of the child within the meaning of § 260.221(b)(4), and that, therefore, termination of her parental rights was proper. However, we reiterate that a mental illness alone cannot serve as the basis for termination and that this court will continue to review each matter upon its specific facts to determine whether statutory grounds for termination exist. Affirmed. OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.