Court Opinion

ID: 9927838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 15:05:57.452418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:28:19.048127
License: Public Domain

STATE OF MINNESOTA
                                IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                      A23-0877

     In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V. R. R. and M. A. H., Parents,
                  Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian.

                                  Filed January 29, 2024
                                         Affirmed
                                       Reyes, Judge

                                Todd County District Court
                                  File No. 77-JV-21-621

Paul B. Hunt, Karkela, Hunt & Cheshire, P.L.L.P., Perham, Minnesota (for appellant Judith
Flores)

John E. Lindemann, Todd County Attorney, Jane M. Gustafson, Assistant County
Attorney, Long Prairie, Minnesota (for respondent Todd County)

Angela J. Sonsalla, Perham, Minnesota (for respondent guardian ad litem)

       Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Florey,

Judge. ∗

                                        SYLLABUS

       When a relative or foster parent files a motion for an order for adoptive placement

of a child under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1) (2022), they must file either (1) a

valid adoption home study 1 under Minn. Stat. § 259.41 or Minn. Stat. § 260C.611

approving the relative or foster parent for adoption of the child or (2) an affidavit attesting

∗
  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
1
  Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6 (2022), uses the phrase “adoption home study,” Minn.
Stat. § 259.41 (2022) uses “adoption study,” and Minn. Stat. § 260C.611 (2022) uses
“adoption study,” “adoptive home study,” and “adoption home study” interchangeably.
We construe each of the phrases to refer to an “adoption home study.”
to efforts to complete an adoption home study that is signed by the relative or foster parent

and the responsible social-services agency or licensed child-placing agency that will

complete the adoption home study.

                                           OPINION

REYES, Judge

         Appellant argues that the district court (1) erred by not granting her motion for an

evidentiary hearing after she filed a motion for an order for adoptive placement; (2) did not

give adequate weight to placing siblings together; and (3) failed to consider Minn. Stat.

§ 259.41, subd. 1(b), when determining the need for an adoption home study. We affirm.

                                            FACTS

         Appellant is the maternal grandmother of J.U.R., who was born in June 2021. Soon

after J.U.R.’s birth, respondent Todd County Health and Human Services (Todd County)

filed an expedited petition to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of J.U.R.’s biological

parents and placed J.U.R. with grandmother. At that time, grandmother was a licensed

foster-care parent; was already fostering J.U.R.’s older sibling, J.J.R.; and had legally

adopted J.U.R.’s older half-sibling, J.J.H.F. The district court ordered that custody of

J.U.R. be transferred to Todd County and granted the TPR petition.             At that time,

respondent guardian ad litem for J.U.R. (the GAL) 2 agreed that placement of J.U.R. with

grandmother was in J.U.R.’s best interests, and Todd County approved of grandmother’s

home as J.U.R.’s permanent placement.

2
    The GAL did not file a brief in this appeal.

                                                   2
      In December 2021, Todd County learned from Wadena County that there had been

a domestic incident between grandmother and her husband that resulted in her husband’s

arrest, during which grandmother appeared to be intoxicated and admitted to consuming

alcohol. Grandmother also called the police a day after the incident, was panicked and

unfocused, and admitted to consuming alcohol again. J.U.R. was in grandmother’s care

during these events. Based on these reports, Todd County and Wadena County social

workers visited grandmother’s home to remove J.U.R. and J.J.R. 3 Upon arriving, the social

workers found grandmother in bed at 1:15 p.m. The Todd County social worker reported

that it took grandmother “approximately 15 minutes to get out of bed” to speak with the

social workers. Grandmother admitted to consuming alcohol, and the Todd County social

worker described her as “shaky, unable to walk straight and unable to focus directly.” The

social workers found J.U.R. asleep “in the back family room in [a] bouncy chair with the

television turned up very loudly.” J.U.R.’s pajamas and the bouncy chair were soaked with

urine, and grandmother could not confirm how long J.U.R. had been there. The Todd

County social worker could not find any clean clothes and only found three pieces of

clothing that fit J.U.R. After the social workers removed J.U.R. and J.J.R. from the home,

grandmother’s stepson reported to officers that grandmother was suicidal.            Law

enforcement subsequently confiscated a loaded handgun from grandmother’s vehicle.

3
  J.J.R. is the subject of an ongoing child in need of protection and services (CHIPS)
permanency proceeding in Wadena County. The December 2021 events were also the
basis for Wadena County opening a CHIPS case for J.J.H.F. and temporarily removing
J.J.H.F. from grandmother’s home.

                                            3
       Todd County placed J.U.R. with a different foster-care provider 4 and informed the

district court that it had begun to seek new placement options and would be conducting a

relative search. The district court approved Todd County’s removal of J.U.R. and change

in foster-care placement. In February 2022, the GAL reported to the district court that

“[neither J.U.R. nor J.J.R.] will be returning to [grandmother’s care] due to the risk of

endangerment.”

       In April 2022, Todd County filed a 90-day relative search court report with the

district court without listing grandmother. Grandmother subsequently filed a notice of

intervention in J.U.R.’s juvenile-protection case and, when no parties objected, she

automatically became a party in May 2022. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 34.03, subd. 1.

Grandmother then moved the district court to stay any adoptive-placement proceedings for

J.U.R. In an accompanying affidavit, grandmother stated that she had learned that adoptive

placement for J.U.R. had been determined and requested an opportunity to be heard and

considered as an adoptive placement so that J.U.R., J.J.R., and J.J.H.F. could remain

together.

       The district court heard grandmother’s motion in June and denied it in July 2022. 5

The district court found that Todd County had considered grandmother as a permanency

4
  Although initially placed in separate foster homes, J.U.R. was ultimately transferred to
the same foster home as J.J.R., and they have since remained together.
5
  Meanwhile, grandmother had also moved for expedited relief and temporary relief in
J.J.R.’s Wadena County case. The motion hearing was held in June 2022. In its August
2022 order, the Wadena County District Court determined that grandmother had alleged a
prima facie showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd.
6 (2022), the same statute at issue here.

                                            4
option and had exercised due diligence in its relative search, and further determined that it

was not in J.U.R.’s best interests to grant grandmother’s motion to delay permanency

proceedings or to place J.U.R. with J.J.H.F. in grandmother’s care.

       In September 2022, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human

Services (the commissioner) revoked grandmother’s foster-care license based on an

investigation of the December 2021 events. 6 On April 12, 2023, grandmother notified the

district court that, despite being a party to the proceeding, she had just received notice of

an adoption-placement agreement between Todd County and J.U.R.’s foster parents and

that an adoption hearing for J.U.R. had been set for mid-April. Later that day, grandmother

filed a motion to stay J.U.R.’s adoption proceedings and to allow her an opportunity to

bring a motion for an order for adoptive placement. Also that day, Todd County notified

the district court of the adoption-placement agreement, which had been executed mid-

March 2023. Approximately a week later, grandmother filed a motion for an order for

adoptive placement of J.U.R. with an affidavit and supporting documents under Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.607, subd. 6.

       Later in April, the district court heard grandmother’s motion, and both parties

submitted briefs. Todd County argued that grandmother’s motion failed to comply with

6
  Todd County has included the commissioner’s license-revocation decision in its
addendum and appears to have provided it to the district court by letter in September 2022.
However, the record contains only Todd County’s letter to the district court referencing the
revocation decision, but not the revocation decision itself. The letter is not part of the
record on appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. Therefore, we do not consider it in
resolving this appeal. See In re Welfare of J.P.-S., 880 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. App. 2016)
(“We may not base our decision on matters that were not received into evidence by the district
court and that are outside the record on appeal.”).

                                              5
statutory requirements because she did not have a valid adoption home study. Todd County

further argued that it was unable, and not required, to complete a home study for

grandmother and that grandmother’s motion was barred by collateral estoppel based on the

district court’s prior July 2022 order. The GAL also opposed grandmother’s motion,

opining that J.U.R.’s best interests favored adoption by J.U.R.’s current foster parents.

Grandmother countered that she had alleged a prima facie showing of Todd County’s

unreasonableness based on its refusal to consider her as an adoptive placement for J.U.R.,

that she met her burden for an evidentiary hearing because Todd County refused to

complete an adoption home study for her, and that collateral estoppel did not bar

grandmother from bringing her motion. After submitting her brief, grandmother filed a

home-study-assessment update, which had been completed May 3, 2021, nearly two years

before her motion, that she claimed was valid.

       In June 2023, the district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, denied

grandmother’s motion for an order for adoptive placement after determining that

grandmother’s motion failed to meet the requirements under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd.

6(a)(1), because she did not have a valid adoption home study and because her affidavit

did not include the signature of “the responsible social services agency or licensed child-

placing agency completing the adoption home study.”            Further, the district court

determined that, even if she would have met the statutory requirements for her motion,

grandmother still failed to “make a prima facie showing that [Todd County] was

unreasonable in failing to make the requested adoptive placement.” The district court did

not address Todd County’s collateral-estoppel argument.

                                            6
       This appeal follows. 7

                                            ISSUE

       Did the district court err by denying grandmother an evidentiary hearing on her

motion for an order for adoptive placement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1)?

                                         ANALYSIS

       Grandmother argues that she complied with the requirements of Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1), when she filed a motion for an order for adoptive placement.

Because whether grandmother’s motion for adoptive placement met the requirements of

Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1), is dispositive of this appeal, we limit our analysis to

that issue.

       Our analysis begins with statutory interpretation, a question of law that we review

de novo. In re Welfare of Child. of A.M.F., 934 N.W.2d 119, 122 (Minn. App. 2019). “The

aim of statutory analysis is to effectuate the intent of the legislature,” In re Welfare of Child

of S.B.G., 991 N.W.2d 874, 884 (Minn. 2023) (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 645.16

(2022), and we presume that the legislature intends an entire statute to be effective and

does not intend the production of an unreasonable or absurd result, Lewis-Miller v. Ross,

710 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Minn. 2006); Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2022). We “read and construe

a statute as a whole and must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to

avoid conflicting interpretations.” A.M.F., 934 N.W.2d at 122 (quotation omitted). We

7
 The district court denied grandmother’s motion to stay the adoption proceedings of J.U.R.
pending this appeal but noted that the adoption will not be finalized pending this appeal
under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 1(c) (2022).

                                               7
must first determine whether a statute is ambiguous by asking whether the statute is

susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Id. If a statute is not ambiguous,

its plain language controls. Id.

       Grandmother filed her motion for an order for adoptive placement under Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.607, subd. 6. Subdivision 6(a) provides that, no later than 30 days after receiving

notice that a child has been placed for adoption under Minn. Stat. § 260C.613, subd. 1(c)

(2022), 8 “a relative or the child’s foster parent may file a motion for an order for adoptive

placement of a child . . . if the relative or the child’s foster parent . . . has an adoption home

study under section 259.41 or 260C.611 approving the relative or foster parent for

adoption.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.607. “If the relative or foster parent does not have an

adoption home study, an affidavit attesting to efforts to complete an adoption home study

may be filed with the motion instead.” Id., subd. 6(a)(1). “The affidavit must be signed

by the relative or foster parent and the responsible social services agency or licensed child-

placing agency completing the adoption home study.” Id.

       Grandmother does not argue that the statute is ambiguous but rather argues that she

met its requirements because she: (1) filed an affidavit attesting to her attempts to obtain a

home study with her motion; (2) had a valid home study in effect when she filed her motion;

and (3) only had to have a background study under Minn. Stat. § 259.41, subds. 2 and 3,

8
  A child is considered “placed for adoption” when “the adopting parent, the agency, and
the commissioner have fully executed an adoption[-]placement agreement.” Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.613, subd. 1(a) (2022).

                                                8
because she is the biological grandmother of J.U.R. We consider each of grandmother’s

arguments in turn.

Grandmother’s Affidavit

       Grandmother filed an affidavit with her signature. However, the affidavit lacks the

required signature from “the responsible social services agency or licensed child-placing

agency completing the adoption home study.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1).

Grandmother’s affidavit therefore does not comply with the signing requirements under

Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1).

       In addition, grandmother asserts in her affidavit that Todd County has “refused to

complete a Home Study on [her] behalf” and other service providers are unable to assist

her. But neither section 259.41 nor section 260C.611 requires an agency to complete a

home study on grandmother’s behalf.        Further, we have previously rejected similar

arguments regarding section 260C.607, subdivision 6(a)(1)’s requirements. In A.M.F., the

appellant requested that the district court waive the home-study requirement because of the

county’s actions, including its “failure in making timely referrals to the home studies” on

her behalf. 934 N.W.2d at 122. We concluded that, because the appellant “did not have a

home study approving her for adoption” when she filed her motion for adoptive placement,

the district court properly denied appellant’s motion. Id. at 124. Although in A.M.F. we

interpreted an earlier version of the statute, Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1) (2018),

which did not include the affidavit in lieu of the adoption-home-study option, we conclude

that A.M.F.’s reasoning is applicable here.       Further, grandmother cites to neither

                                             9
circumstances nor authority that would allow a district court to excuse a movant’s failure

to comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1).

Grandmother’s Home Study

        Grandmother states that, when she brought her motion for adoptive placement, she

had a valid home-study assessment in effect which she filed with the district court after the

motion hearing. The district court determined that grandmother did not have a “valid,

completed home study,” but did not expand upon its determination.

        Grandmother’s home-study-assessment update is not a valid “adoption home study”

under either Minn. Stat. § 259.41 or Minn. Stat. § 260C.611. Section 259.41 provides that

“[a]n adoption study is valid if the report has been completed or updated within the previous

12 months.” Minn. Stat. § 259.41, subd. 4 (emphasis added). Because grandmother’s

assessment update was completed in May 2021, it was no longer a valid adoption home

study when grandmother filed her motion for an order for adoptive placement in April

2023.    Further, the assessment update grandmother submitted relates to foster-care

licensing and was completed before J.U.R. was born.                    Minnesota Statutes

section 260C.611(a) provides that “[a]n adoption study under section 259.41 approving

placement of the child in the home of the prospective adoptive parent shall be completed

before placing any child under the guardianship of the commissioner in a home for

adoption.” (Emphasis added.) Because the assessment update does not approve placement

of J.U.R. with grandmother, it does not qualify as an adoption study under section

260C.611. Moreover, section 260C.611(a) also provides that a “child foster care home

study” can qualify as an approved adoption home study only if, among other requirements,

                                             10
“a prospective adoptive parent has a current child foster care license . . . and is seeking to

adopt a foster child who is placed in the prospective adoptive parent’s home,” and the

commissioner has not issued a “sanction on the [foster care] license under section

245A.07” within the last three years.       Minn. Stat. § 260C.611(a) (emphasis added).

Grandmother disputes neither that J.U.R. is placed outside of grandmother’s home nor that

the commissioner revoked grandmother’s child-foster-care license in 2022.

       Grandmother also contends that no home study was required because, under Minn.

Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(f)(2), (g)(1), a district court has the discretion to order adoptive

placement after an evidentiary hearing even without a home study being filed with the

original motion for an order for adoptive placement. But neither of these provisions change

the threshold requirement that, if the relative or foster parent does not file an adoption home

study, then the relative or foster parent must file an affidavit signed by them and the agency

completing the adoption home study. Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1). Because

grandmother failed to comply with the affidavit requirements, her argument fails. See

A.M.F., 934 N.W.2d at 124.

Background Study under Minn. Stat. § 259.41

       Grandmother argues that, under Minn. Stat. § 259.41, subd. 1(b), because she is the

biological grandmother to J.U.R., she could submit a background study in lieu of an

adoption home study with her motion for an order for adoptive placement.

       Although grandmother faults the district court for not considering this issue, she did

not raise it before the district court. Because we do not have a decision from the district

court, we decline to address grandmother’s argument here.             See Hoyt Inv. Co. v.

                                              11
Bloomington Com. & Trade Ctr. Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 1988) (“[A]n

undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.”); Thiele v. Stich, 425

N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“[A] party [may not] obtain review by raising the same

general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”). Further, inadequately briefed

issues are not properly before an appellate court. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20

(Minn. 1982); In re Welfare of Child of L.M.L., 730 N.W.2d 316, 322 (Minn. App. 2007)

(applying Melina in a juvenile-protection matter).        Besides referencing Minn. Stat.

§ 259.41, subd. 1(b), grandmother’s argument is conclusory, and she does not cite to any

other authority to support it. See State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers,

Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address inadequately briefed

question); In re Child of P.T., 657 N.W.2d 577, 586 n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying Wintz

in appeal regarding TPR), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 15, 2003).

                                        DECISION

       We hold that, under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(1), at the time a relative or

foster parent files a motion for an order for adoptive placement of a child, they must file

either (1) a valid adoption home study under Minn. Stat. § 259.41 or Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.611 approving the relative or foster parent for adoption of the child or (2) an

affidavit attesting to efforts to complete an adoption home study that is signed by the

relative or foster parent and the responsible social-services agency or licensed child-placing

agency that will complete the adoption home study. Here, grandmother failed to file a

valid adoption home study or an affidavit that met subdivision 6(a)(1)’s requirements.

Because grandmother failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for an evidentiary hearing

                                             12
on her request that J.U.R. be placed with her, the district court did not err by refusing to

hold the hearing and denying grandmother’s motion for an order for adoptive placement.

       Affirmed.

                                            13