STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A23-1697

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: 

T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents. 

Filed January 8, 2024

Appeal dismissed

Segal, Chief Judge

Itasca County District Court

File No. 31-JV-23-1873

Jennifer L. Thompson, JLT Law & Mediation, Litchfield, Minnesota (for appellant-father 

T.M.A.)

Matti R. Adam, Itasca County Attorney, Michael J. Haig, Chief Assistant County Attorney, 

Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent Itasca County Health and Human Services) 

Rachel Hughes, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Larson, Judge. 

SYLLABUS

When a district court defers finalizing an order transferring permanent legal and 

physical custody of a child to a relative so that eligibility of the relative for Northstar 

kinship assistance can be determined, the order is not a final, appealable order under Minn. 

R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1.

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

SEGAL, Chief Judge

Appellant T.M.A. filed this appeal, challenging the district court’s order transferring 

permanent legal and physical custody of T.M.A.’s child to relatives. The district court 
2

stated in the order that it was “appropriate to defer finalization of [the] order to determine 

eligibility [of the relatives] for Northstar kinship assistance under Minn. Stat. Chap. 256N” 

and that the court would hold a hearing “to review the status of Northstar kinship assistance 

determinations.”1

This court questioned whether the order was final and appealable and, if not, 

whether this appeal must be dismissed as premature. T.M.A. and respondent Itasca County 

Health and Human Services (the county) filed informal memoranda. The county separately 

moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that T.M.A. failed to timely serve the notice of 

appeal on the child’s other parent.

DECISION

T.M.A. and the county both contend that the order is final and appealable, arguing 

that it constitutes a final determination concerning T.M.A.’s right to permanent legal and 

physical custody of the child. They maintain that further proceedings will focus on the 

eligibility of the relatives for Northstar kinship assistance, not on T.M.A.’s rights 

concerning custody, care, and control of the child. And as set out in the county’s 

1 Northstar kinship assistance provides medical coverage and reimbursement of 

nonrecurring expenses associated with obtaining permanent legal and physical custody of 

a child and may include financial support provided under agreement with the financially 

responsible agency, the commissioner of human services, and the relative who has received 

a transfer of permanent legal and physical custody of a child. Minn. Stat. § 256N.02, 

subd. 11 (2022). To establish eligibility for Northstar kinship assistance, the legally 

responsible agency must complete a background study on each prospective relative 

custodian seeking Northstar kinship assistance and any other adult residing in the home of 

the prospective relative custodian and make certain determinations regarding permanency, 

including a determination that the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective 

relative custodian and that the prospective relative custodian has a strong commitment to

caring permanently for the child. Minn. Stat. § 256N.22, subds. 2, 4 (2022). 
3

memorandum, they assert that “[n]othing in the district court’s order states or implies that 

it intends to keep the door open for more litigation on the permanent custody issue” as to 

T.M.A. 

“An appeal may be taken by the aggrieved person from a final order of the juvenile 

court affecting a substantial right of the aggrieved person.” Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, 

subd. 1. An order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of the child would 

clearly affect a “substantial right” of T.M.A. See SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 815, 

820 (Minn. 2007) (“A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and 

control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”). The only issue we must 

resolve then is whether the order is a “final order” transferring custody of the child. 

Section 260C.515 of the Minnesota Statutes provides that, if a “child is not returned 

to the home at or before the conclusion of permanency proceedings under sections

260C.503 to 260C.521, the court must order one of the permanency dispositions” set out 

in the section. Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 1 (2022). The permanency dispositions in 

section 260C.515 include, among other options, the termination of parental rights and the 

transfer of permanent legal and physical custody to a relative. Id., subds. 2, 4 (2022). 

When the disposition involves transfer of custody to a relative, as is the case here, 

subdivision 4(8) of the statute provides that the district court “may defer finalization of an 

order transferring permanent legal and physical custody to a relative when deferring 

finalization is necessary to determine eligibility for Northstar kinship assistance under 

chapter 256N.” Id., subd. 4(8); see also Minn. Stat. § 256N.22, subd. 2(a) (stating that 

“[t]o be eligible for Northstar kinship assistance, the legally responsible agency must [make 
4

certain] determinations regarding permanency for the child prior to the transfer of 

permanent legal and physical custody” (emphasis added)). Here, the district court ordered 

that finalization was to be deferred until eligibility for Northstar kinship assistance could 

be determined. 

The word “defer” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as meaning: “To postpone; 

to delay until a later date.” Black’s Law Dictionary 533 (11th ed. 2019). That same 

dictionary defines the word “final” as meaning: “not requiring any further judicial action 

by the court that rendered judgment to determine the matter litigated; concluded.” Id. at 

773. In another context, the supreme court has “defined a final order as one that ends the 

proceeding as far as the court is concerned or that finally determines some positive legal 

right of the appellant relating to the action.” In re Est. of Janecek, 610 N.W.2d 638, 642 

(Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted); see also T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Constr., LLC, 

773 N.W.2d 783, 788 (Minn. 2009) (“A final judgment ends the litigation on the merits 

and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (quotations omitted)). 

Applying these definitions to the plain language of the order, we must conclude that 

the order is not a final, appealable order under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1. This 

appeal is therefore premature. T.M.A. may seek review of the order in a timely appeal 

from a final order, if any, transferring custody of the child. We caution, however, that the 

district court should proceed with all deliberate speed to reach a final determination. 

Because this appeal is premature, we deny as moot the county’s motion to dismiss the 

appeal for lack of timely service on the child’s other parent. 

Appeal dismissed.