Court Opinion

ID: 9945383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:08:03.914912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.038134
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1175

                      In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
                             A. S., D. S., C. P., J. H., Parents.

                                 Filed February 26, 2024
                                 Reversed and remanded
                                     Cochran, Judge

                              Faribault County District Court
                                   File No. 22-JV-22-16

Kelli M. Thiel, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant A.S.)

Cameron Davis, Faribault County Attorney, Blue Earth, Minnesota (for respondent Human
Services of Faribault & Martin Counties)

Kris Kuechenmeister, Blue Earth, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

       Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and

Cochran, Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

COCHRAN, Judge

       Appellant-mother challenges the district court’s order transferring permanent legal

and physical custody of two of her children to the children’s aunt, arguing that the district

court failed to make individualized findings related to aunt’s suitability as a custodian and

failed to effectuate her right to counsel. Because we conclude that the district court’s

factual findings are inadequate to facilitate appellate review, we reverse and remand.
                                           FACTS

      Prior to June 2021, appellant A.S. (mother) had sole legal and sole physical custody

of her three children, R.S., Z.S., and H.H. On June 18, 2021, following an emergency-

protective-care hearing, all three children were placed in the custody of respondent Human

Services of Faribault and Martin Counties (the agency) and placed out of home. Mother

entered an admission that all three children were in need of protection and services at an

admit/deny hearing, and the district court adjudicated the three children accordingly.

Mother appeared and was represented by court-appointed counsel at both hearings. R.S.

and Z.S. (the children) were ultimately placed with their maternal grandmother, D.S.

(grandmother), and H.H. was placed with his father, J.H. The agency provided mother

with a case plan following adjudication.

      Petition to Transfer Physical and Legal Custody to Grandmother

      In February 2022, the agency filed a petition to transfer permanent physical and

legal custody of the children to grandmother based on mother’s failure to make meaningful

progress on her case plan. The petition also requested to transfer custody of H.H. to his

father. The matter proceeded to trial on May 11, 2022.

      Mother did not appear at the trial, but her counsel appeared and communicated that

mother was “okay with the transfer of custody petition.” During the trial, the agency

presented testimony from grandmother, J.H., Z.S.’s father, the agency case manager, and

the guardian ad litem.

                                             2
       Following the trial, the district court issued an order transferring permanent legal

and physical custody of H.H. to his father 1 and transferring permanent legal and physical

custody of the children to grandmother. The district court, however, stayed the transfer to

grandmother pending approval of Northstar kinship assistance. 2         The district court

determined that transferring custody to grandmother was in the best interests of the

children. The district court also made specific findings supporting its best-interests

determination, including that the children have a “strong, bonded relationship with

[grandmother],” and that grandmother has a strong support network, which includes

mother’s adult daughter, grandmother’s other adult daughter, and J.H. The district court

also found that, “[i]n addition to providing foster care to [the children], [grandmother]

provides daily after-school care for [H.H.]” and grandmother and J.H. “have a strong

working relationship.” And the district court found that mother, “despite being unable to

provide care for the children, remains an important part of the children’s lives and an

integrated part of the extended family unit.”

       Review Hearings

       During the October 5 review hearing, before the district court issued a final order

transferring permanent legal and physical custody to grandmother, the agency informed

the district court that grandmother had experienced some health issues. As a result, the

1
  The transfer of custody of H.H. to J.H. is not at issue in this appeal.
2
  Northstar kinship assistance is a state benefits program available to a child placed in
relative foster care who finds permanency with the relative through a transfer of permanent
legal and physical custody. See Minn. Stat. § 256N.02, subd. 11 (2022) (defining Northstar
kinship assistance); see also Minn. Stat. § 256N.22 (2022) (addressing Northstar kinship
assistance eligibility).

                                                3
agency initiated a change in placement from grandmother to an aunt, who resides in Iowa.

According to the agency, the children moved to aunt’s residence in August 2022. Because

of grandmother’s health issues, the agency indicated that it was making efforts to

permanently place the children with aunt. The agency asserted that placement with aunt

was in the children’s best interests. Neither mother nor her counsel appeared at this

hearing. On October 27, the district court issued an order approving temporary placement

with aunt.

       The district court held another review hearing on January 4, 2023. Mother appeared

at the hearing with her adult daughter and J.H., but without counsel. During the hearing,

the agency noted that grandmother’s health had further declined. As a result, the agency

intended to permanently place the children with aunt and informed the district court that it

would be filing a motion for an order transferring custody to aunt. Mother, her adult

daughter, and J.H. each voiced concerns about aunt not bringing the children to Minnesota

for visits and difficulties communicating with aunt, which had the effect of limiting contact

between the children and their siblings.

       In response to the concerns, the agency noted that it considers sibling contact in

making a placement. The agency again indicated that it would be filing a motion to transfer

custody for the district court to consider “the appropriate path forward.” The agency

suggested that, when the motion is filed, mother and J.H. consider consulting with counsel

or “review[] their legal options.” The district court and the agency then discussed the status

of counsel:

                                              4
              DISTRICT COURT: I think [mother and J.H.] discharged
              their counsel once we got past permanency in their case—in
              this case.

              AGENCY: We did absolutely. I mean at this point, we are
              in—we would be in the realm of, you know, family law
              issues—issues with visitation, sibling visitation, of course.
              The court, the agency, and [the guardian ad litem] maintain an
              interest in that as long as the CHIPS case is active.

                     But you know, [mother’s] parental rights are not
              terminated; she retains parental rights and has the ability to
              petition the court for any specific relief or to be heard—hearing
              any motion. So you know, that’s I suppose another thing the
              court should consider is whether it would be appropriate to
              reappoint counsel for [mother] at the time that motion is filed.

The court informed mother and J.H. that they had the “option of going and retaining [their]

own counsel if [they] are able to do so” and that it would “look at the rules and see if we

can appoint counsel once that motion has been filed for [mother].” The district court also

directed the agency to investigate the concerns expressed at the hearing regarding aunt and

to report back.

       Although the transcript from the January review hearing reflects that the court was

under the impression that counsel for mother had been discharged after the court transferred

permanent custody to grandmother, there is no evidence in the appellate record that

mother’s counsel was formally discharged. In fact, the register of actions reflects that

mother’s counsel continued to receive e-service of documents filed in district court until

August 14, 2023.

                                             5
       Motion to Transfer Custody to Aunt

       On January 27, 2023, the agency filed a motion to transfer permanent legal and

physical custody of the children to aunt, to be heard at the February 15 post-permanency

review hearing. On February 13, the agency filed an update regarding the communication

issues with aunt. The agency explained that it met with mother’s adult daughter, aunt, and

J.H. separately to address “the current communication issues and sibling visits” and that

“[a]ll parties agreed that they could work together moving forward.” The report does not

reflect that the agency met with mother.

       At the February 15 hearing, aunt appeared but neither mother nor her counsel

appeared. The district court heard updates from the agency about the investigation into the

communication issues, the guardian ad litem, and the agency case manager. Aunt did not

testify, and the agency did not introduce any exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing,

the agency stated, “[E]ssentially, all [the agency is] really asking is that [it] be allowed to

substitute [aunt’s] name for [grandmother’s] name in that previous order, with the

additional finding that [aunt] is a safe and appropriate caretaker for the children.”

       Following the hearing, the agency filed a proposed order. The district court granted

the agency’s motion and stayed the order pending Northstar kinship assistance. On July 18,

2023, the district court issued an order transferring permanent legal and physical custody

of the children to aunt.

                                              6
       Mother appeals. 3

                                         DECISION

       Mother challenges the order transferring permanent physical and legal custody of

the children to aunt. When reviewing an order transferring permanent custody, we review

factual findings for clear error and the finding of a statutory basis for the order for an abuse

of discretion. In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Minn. App. 2015),

rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). “A district court abuses its discretion by making

findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering

a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.”              Woolsey v. Woolsey,

975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022) (quotation omitted). When reviewing factual findings

for clear error, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings,

do not find their own facts, do not reweigh the evidence, and do not reconcile conflicting

evidence. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021).

       Mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by transferring permanent

physical and legal custody to aunt because the district court’s factual findings were

inadequate and the district court failed to effectuate her right to counsel. We address each

issue in turn.

3
 On August 8, 2023, a different attorney filed a certificate of representation for mother in
district court. That attorney represents mother in this appeal. It is unclear from the record
on appeal whether the new attorney was appointed by the district court.

                                               7
I.     The district court did not make findings sufficient to sustain the transfer of
       permanent custody to aunt.

       Mother argues that the district court erred by finding that placement with aunt was

in the children’s best interests because the district court’s factual findings were not

particularized to aunt and failed to address the statutory criteria about aunt’s suitability as

custodian.

       A district court “may order permanent legal and physical custody to a fit and willing

relative in the best interests of the child” after “the court has reviewed the suitability of the

prospective legal and physical custodian.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4 (2022). Such

an order must include “detailed findings” about “how the child’s best interests are served

by the order.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.517 (2022). If the transfer of custody is to a relative

who is not a parent, the district court must make findings that the transfer is: (1) in the

child’s best interests; (2) that adoption is not in the child’s best interests; (3) that the agency

discussed adoption with the child’s parent or parents, or, if the agency did not make efforts,

why efforts were not made; and (4) that there are reasons to separate siblings. Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.515, subd. 4(7)(i)-(iv). The applicable standard of proof is clear and convincing

evidence. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.03, subd. 1; In re Welfare of Child. of J.C.L.,

958 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. May 12, 2021).

       Here, mother challenges two of the four statutory findings required under

section 260C.515, subdivision 4(7), for a transfer to a relative who is not a parent—the

children’s best interests under subdivision 4(7)(i), and the discussion of adoption under

subdivision 4(7)(iii). We consider each in turn.

                                                8
       Best-Interests Finding Under Section 260C.515, Subdivision 4(7)(i)

       Mother first argues that the district court failed to make the statutorily required

particularized best-interests findings related to aunt’s suitability as permanent legal and

physical custodian of the children, contending that the district court’s findings are clearly

erroneous because they are based on evidence about grandmother, not aunt.                 In a

permanency proceeding, the best interests of a child “means all relevant factors to be

considered” and includes “a review of the relationship between the child and relatives and

the child and other important persons with whom the child has resided or had significant

contact.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.511 (2022); see also J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d at 657. We

conclude that the district court’s factual findings are insufficient to permit appellate review

of its best-interests analysis.

       A district court’s order must contain sufficient factual findings to ensure that it

considered the relevant statutory factors, facilitate appellate review, and satisfy the parties

that the district court carefully and fairly considered the issues. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld,

249 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Minn. 1976); see In re Welfare of Child of J.R.R., 943 N.W.2d 661,

669-70 (Minn. App. 2020) (citing this aspect of Rosenfeld in a juvenile-protection appeal);

cf. In re Welfare of M.M., 452 N.W.2d 236, 239 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that district

court’s findings of fact were deficient when the findings were “inadequate to facilitate

effective appellate review, to provide insight into which facts or opinions were most

persuasive of the ultimate decision, or to demonstrate the [district] court’s comprehensive

consideration of the statutory criteria”). “Even though the [district] court is given broad

discretion in determining custody matters, it is important that the basis for the court’s

                                              9
decision be set forth with a high degree of particularity.”              Durkin v. Hinich,

442 N.W.2d 148, 151 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted); see In re Child of Evenson,

729 N.W.2d 632, 635 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing this aspect of Durkin in a juvenile-

protection appeal), rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).

       Here, the district court’s order fails to provide sufficient factual findings to allow

for meaningful appellate review. The district court’s order includes conclusory findings

that aunt “is capable of maintaining sibling and family relationships” and that “[t]he

children will be able to maintain a relationship with the relatives.” 4 The order, however,

is silent about both the communication issues that mother and other family members raised

during the January 2023 hearing, which allegedly impaired the children’s relationship with

their siblings and other family members, and the results of the agency’s investigation into

those issues. Moreover, the findings do not contain particularized information about the

children, the relatives with whom the children have relationships, or how placement with

aunt will serve those relationships. Absent such findings, we are unable to discern whether

the district court adequately considered the children’s relationships as required under

Minnesota Statutes section 260C.511(b). Cf. J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d at 658 (concluding that

the district court properly considered the factors under section 260C.511 when the district

court “found that the step-grandfather has facilitated the children’s relationships with their

mother and father, as well as members of the children’s extended family, including both

4
  By contrast, the district court’s factual findings in the order transferring custody to
grandmother identified specific facts about grandmother’s support network, grandmother’s
care of the children and their half-sibling, the children’s amount of interaction with their
half-sibling while in grandmother’s care, and the children’s relationship with mother.

                                             10
maternal and paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, and half-siblings”). Consequently, we

cannot determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that

transfer of permanent legal and physical custody of the children to aunt is in the best

interests of the children.

       Our conclusion that the order is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review

of mother’s challenges to the factual findings is reinforced by the record in this case. The

district court’s order was issued following a hearing that lasted only 17 minutes, at which

the agency and guardian ad litem each provided a brief update. But the agency did not

introduce any exhibits, and aunt did not testify. The district court’s order transferring

custody of the children to aunt, which was drafted by the agency, states:

                      Based upon the reports filed with the Court and
              information provided by the Guardian ad Litem, and in light of
              the uncontested motion by the County to substitute [aunt] as
              proposed custodian for the children, the Court finds that it is in
              the best interest of the children to transfer custody of the
              children to [aunt]. All other findings from this Court’s prior
              transfer order, issued on June 10, 2022, are incorporated
              herein.

Although the order contains additional factual findings, including that “[t]he children have

a significant relationship with the proposed permanent custodian” and “[t]he proposed

permanent custodian has been the children’s primary caretaker(s) since August 24, 2022,

and this home has provided a stable and satisfactory environment,” it is not clear what

information the district court relied upon when making its findings. Even if a parent fails

to appear, the district court must make “detailed findings” about how the children’s best

interests will be served by the order and those findings must be based on clear and

                                             11
convincing evidence. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.517; Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 18.02, 58.03,

subd. 1. Because the district court’s best-interests findings do not give “insight into which

facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision” or “demonstrate the

[district] court’s comprehensive consideration of the statutory criteria,” we conclude the

findings are insufficient for appellate review. See M.M., 452 N.W.2d at 239. 5

       Adoption Finding Under Section 260C.515, Subdivision 4(7)(iii)

       Mother also argues that the district court erred in its finding that “the agency made

efforts to discuss adoption with the child’s parent or parents, or the agency did not make

efforts to discuss adoption and the reasons why efforts were not made,” as required under

section 260C.515, subdivision 4(7)(iii). We agree.

       The district court found that “[t]he agency made efforts to discuss adoption with

mother.” As mother argues, there is no evidence that the agency discussed adoption with

5
   To the extent that mother argues that the district court erred by not making
findings addressing the statutory criteria under Minnesota Statutes section 260C.212,
subdivision 2(b) (2022), we disagree. As this court recently explained:

              The factors in section 260C.212, subdivision 2(b), are aligned
              with the best interests of a child in a permanency proceeding,
              but those factors are not required by section 260C.511, which
              governs and specifies the best-interests criteria that must be
              considered before ordering a permanency disposition other
              than a termination of parental rights.

J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d at 657. Thus, although the legislature has emphasized that the best
interests of children who experience the transfer of permanent legal and physical custody
are met by “requiring individualized determinations under section 260C.212,
subdivision 2, paragraph (b), of the needs of the child and how the selected home will serve
the needs of the child,” Minn. Stat. § 260C.193, subd. 3(a)(2) (2022), a district court is not
required to make individualized findings related to each of the factors listed in section
260C.212, subdivision 2(b).

                                             12
mother in relation to the transfer of custody to aunt. To the contrary, the record reflects

that the agency requested that the district court “incorporate its transfer findings from the

previous transfer order with respect to the decision to transfer custody versus adoption.”

Because the district court’s finding was not based on efforts related to the aunt as the

proposed custodian, we conclude that the district court’s finding that the agency “made

efforts to discuss adoption with Mother” is not supported by the record and does not satisfy

section 260C.515, subdivision 4(7)(iii).

       In sum, we conclude that the district court’s findings related to section 260C.515,

subdivision 4(7)(i), are insufficient for appellate review and that the district court failed to

make the finding required under section 260C.515, subdivision 4(7)(iii). As a result, we

conclude the district court’s findings cannot sustain the transfer of physical and legal

custody to aunt.

II.    The record is insufficient to determine whether the district court erred with
       respect to mother’s right to counsel.

       Mother also argues that the district court “improperly dismissed” her counsel while

permanency proceedings were still ongoing.

       Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection Procedure 36.01 provides “[e]very party and

participant has the right to be represented by counsel in every juvenile protection matter,

including through appeal, if any.”         Under Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection

Procedure 36.05, an attorney “shall continue representation until”: (a) “all district court

proceedings in the matter have been completed”; (b) “the attorney has been discharged by

the client in writing or on the record”; (c) “the court grants the attorney’s motion for

                                              13
withdrawal”; or (d) “the court approves the attorney’s written substitution of counsel.”

Appointment of counsel for parent is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 260C.163,

subdivision 3 (2022). Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 36.02, subd. 2. If the parent desires counsel

and is eligible for counsel, the court must appoint counsel to represent the parent “prior to

the first hearing on the petition and at all stages of the proceedings.”        Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.163, subd. 3(c).

       Here, it is undisputed that the district court appointed counsel for mother and that

her counsel appeared during the May 2022 trial regarding the transfer to grandmother.

Mother then appeared, without counsel, at the January 2023 review hearing. During that

hearing, both the district court and the agency stated that mother’s counsel had been

discharged. The district court’s and the agency’s comments at the hearing suggest that they

believed that the permanency proceedings had concluded and mother was no longer

entitled to counsel. Neither mother nor her counsel appeared at the February 2023 hearing

regarding the motion to transfer custody to aunt, and the district court did not address the

issue of mother’s counsel at that hearing. But the register of actions reflects that mother’s

court-appointed counsel continued to receive e-service until August 14, 2023.

       On this record, we cannot discern whether the district court complied with its

obligations with respect to mother’s counsel while the permanency proceedings were still

ongoing. The record does not contain evidence—outside of the district court’s and the

agency’s comments—that mother’s counsel was discharged or withdrew from

representation. The record therefore does not support that the district court dismissed

mother’s counsel, improperly or otherwise. But our conclusion that mother has not shown

                                             14
that the district court dismissed her counsel does not address the crux of her argument: that

mother was denied effective assistance of counsel during the permanency proceedings

relating to the transfer of custody to aunt, in part due to the actions of the district court.

Ultimately, however, we need not address whether the district court erred with respect to

mother’s counsel in light of our conclusion above that we must reverse the district court’s

order and remand to the district court because the district court did not make sufficient

factual findings.

       In sum, we reverse and remand for the district court to make further findings related

to the statutory criteria. On remand, the district court shall consider whether mother is a

party entitled to counsel under the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure and,

if so, whether mother is entitled to court-appointed counsel pursuant to Minnesota Rule of

Juvenile Protection Procedure 36.01, subdivision 2. See also Minn. Stat. § 260C.163,

subd. 3. We note that the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure were amended

effective January 1, 2024, and that the amended rules govern this case on remand. The

district court may, in its discretion, reopen the record to address mother’s entitlement to

counsel and the required statutory findings.

       Reversed and remanded.

                                               15