Source: http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/0612/opa060700-1129.htm
Timestamp: 2018-06-24 17:05:46
Document Index: 469342843

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260', '§ 260']

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B.K., M.C., J.N., and D.S. A06-700, Court of Appeals Unpublished, December 5, 2006.
B.K., M.C., J.N., and D.S.
File Nos. 09-JV-05-891; 09-JV-05-889; 09-JV-05-3591
Keith M. Carlson, Keith M. Carlson Law Firm, Box 770, 807 Cloquet Avenue, Cloquet, MN 55720 (for appellant)
Thom Pertler, Carlton County Attorney, Dennis Genereau, Jr., Assistant County Attorney, Carlton County Attorney’s Office, Box 300, Carlton, MN 55718 (for respondent)
Appellant-mother challenges the termination of her parental rights, arguing that (a) the record does not support the district court’s finding that reasonable services failed to correct conditions that led to a determination of the children’s need for protection or services; (b) the record does not support the district court’s finding that she is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship; and (c) that the district court failed to address whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Because appellant challenges only two of the four statutory grounds for termination of parental rights found by the district court, the district court did not err in concluding that clear and convincing evidence supports grounds for termination of parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) (2004). But because neither the record nor the district court’s findings address the paramount consideration of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of each child, we remand for further findings on the children’s best interests.
Appellant B.K. (mother) and her three children, C.K., born in July 1995, J.K, born in July 2001, and A.K., born in November 2003, have been involved with Carlton County Human Services (CCHS) for several years. C.K. and J.K. were removed from mother’s care in 2002 due to unsanitary conditions in the home and mother’s involvement in a violent relationship. The children were returned to B.K.’s home within a few months.
J.K. was again removed from mother’s care in May 2004, after being diagnosed with malnourishment and failure to thrive. C.K. and A.K. were placed in relative foster care in December 2004 due to poor conditions in mother’s home. None of the children have been returned to mother’s care. J.K. was placed with his father for more than a year, after which father informed CCHS that he was no longer able to care for J.K. and wished to terminate his parental rights. CCHS petitioned for termination of mother’s rights to C.K. and A.K. in March 2005, and petitioned for termination of mother’s rights to J.K. in November 2005. The matters were consolidated for trial, which took place in February and March 2006.
The district court found that mother has been receiving services through CCHS since approximately August 2002, and mother’s ability to provide a safe and appropriate environment for the children has been a “continuous concern.” The district court made detailed findings about the numerous services provided to mother in an effort to assist her in maintaining a safe and appropriate environment for the children, and found that mother “has not been able to maintain an appropriate home despite evidence that numerous professionals, including social workers, family school support workers, guardian ad litems, and public health nurses, as well as lay volunteers, have attempted to help her do so over the last five years.” The district court found that mother appears to be motivated to care for her home and herself “only when significant pressure and supervision is applied.” The district court noted that “[i]t is through this historical view that [the district] [c]ourt had developed a significant concern regarding [mother]’s inability to maintain a lifestyle that is healthy and appropriate for her children, including maintenance of a safe home and development of safe relationships.” The district court’s only specific reference to the best interests of the children is a “finding” that the guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended termination of parental rights and that she “was diligent in her efforts to apprize the [district court] of the children’s best interests throughout this case.”
The district court terminated mother’s parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2) (2004), for substantially, continuously, or repeatedly refusing or neglecting to comply with the duties imposed on her by the parent and child relationship; Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1 (b)(4) (2004), as palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship; Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,subd 1(b)(5) (2004), because reasonable efforts failed to correct conditions that led to a determination of the children’s need for protection or services, and Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(8) (2004), because the children were neglected and in foster care.
On appeal, mother argues that CCHS failed to provide adequate services, mother complied with the services and further services would not be futile, the record does not support the determination that mother is palpably unfit, and neither the record nor the district court’s findings address whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
When reviewing a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights, “appellate courts are limited to determining whether the findings address the statutory criteria, whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether they are clearly erroneous.” In re Welfare of D.D.G., 558 N.W. 2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1997) (citation omitted). “Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W. 2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996). Butappellate courts “exercise great caution in proceedings to terminate parental rights.” In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P., 678 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Minn. App. 2004). This court closely inquires into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing. In re Welfare of J.M., 574 N.W.2d 717, 724 (Minn. 1998).
Proof of only one of the nine criteria listed in Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) (2004) is sufficient to support termination of parental rights, if termination is in the child’s best interest. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2004). “In any proceeding [to terminate parental rights] the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration,” provided that at least one of the criteria listed in Minn. Stat. § 260.301, subd. 1(b) is found by the district court. Id. As we noted in In re Welfare of M.P., the concept that best interests of the child are paramount in termination proceedings has been part of Minnesota child welfare law “for at least 100 years.” 542 N.W. 2d 71, 74 (Minn. App. 1996), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Welfare of J.M., 574 N.W.2d at 723.
In this case, the district court found that CCHS proved four of the criteria listed in Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) by clear and convincing evidence. Mother only appeals the district court’s findings on two of the criteria. Because mother does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that parental rights should be terminated under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(2) or 1(b)(8), we need not address her challenge to termination under subds. 1(b)(4) and 1(b)(5). Nonetheless, having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude there is clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s findings that CCHS provided reasonable services to mother over the course of two years and that these efforts failed to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement. The record also supports the district court’s conclusion that there is clear and convincing evidence that mother is unable to consistently maintain a safe and healthy home environment appropriate for the children, and therefore is palpably unfit to parent.
There is merit, however, to mother’s assertion that the district court failed to adequately address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of each child. The district court’s only reference to the children’s best interests is a finding that the GAL, who was recommending termination of parental rights, “was diligent in her efforts to apprize the [district court] of the children’s best interests throughout this case.” Although there is ample evidence in the record to support a finding of fact or conclusion of law that it would not be in the children’s best interests to be returned to mother’s care, there is no evidence in the record addressing whether termination of mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of each child, and the district court failed to address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in each child’s best interest.
Mother points to evidence in the record that she was consistent in exercising her supervised visitation, that the children are well bonded to her and were always excited to visit her, and that mother and the children have very good interactions.[1] The GAL testified that ten-year old C.K. has expressed a preference to live with his mother, and there was testimony that C.K. was sad when he had to leave his mother after visitation.
“Because a child’s best interests may preclude terminating parental rights where one or more of the statutory prerequisites for termination are present, the trial court’s findings in a termination case must address whether termination is in a child’s best interests and, if so, explain the trial court’s rationale for reaching that conclusion.” In re Welfare of M.P., 542 N.W. 2d at 74-75. Respondent argues that the district court’s reference to the GAL’s recommendation and diligent efforts to keep the district court apprized of the children’s bests interests and the finding that mother was unable to maintain a home that is suitable for habitation by the children or maintain a lifestyle that is healthy and appropriate for her children sufficiently demonstrate that the district court implicitly and explicitly considered the children’s best interests. But “[d]etermination of a child’s ‘best interests’. . . is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record.” In re Tanghe, 672 N.W. 623, 625 (Minn. App. 2003) (rejecting county’s contention that because evidence addressed best-interests considerations and the district court relied on this evidence, the district court necessarily considered the children’s best interests in deciding to terminate parental rights). As we noted in Tanghe, “[w]ithout a specific finding on the best interests of the children, we are unable to address [mother’s] substantive challenges to the district court’s decision to terminate her parental rights.” Id.at 626. We therefore remand for findings on the children’s best interests.
[1] There is also evidence in the record that J.K. was reluctant to visit mother and that visitation resulted in behavioral problems for J.K. and C.K.