In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. S. L., Child

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1122

In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. S. L., Child

Filed February 20, 2018
Reversed and remanded
Connolly, Judge

Freeborn County District Court
File No. 24-JV-16-62

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

David Walker, Freeborn County Attorney, Jennifer Clements, Assistant County Attorney,
Albert Lea, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant juvenile challenges the district court’s delinquency disposition order that
placed him at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Red Wing. He argues that the district
court erred by not ordering a less -restrictive disposition such as Prairie Lakes or with his
mother under intense supervision. Because the district court’s written findings were not
2
sufficient to support its decision, we reverse and remand for the district court to make the
specific findings required by Minnesota law.
FACTS
In December 2015, appellant B.S.L. punched and threatened his father with a knife.
The district court adjudicated him delinquent of domestic assault, in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 2 (2014) , and terroristic threats, in violation of Minn. St at.
§ 609.713, subd. 1 (2014). The district court placed B.S.L. on indefinite supervised
probation at the juvenile correctional facility Mesabi Academy (Mesabi), with mandatory
reviews every six months.
While on probation, B.S.L. tested positive for met hamphetamine. Pursuant to an
agreement between the parties and because Mesabi had closed, the district court placed
B.S.L. at Anoka County Secure Program , pending transfer to Woodward Academy
(Woodward). B.S.L. completed Woodward’s program, and on December 8, 2016, the
district court placed B.S.L. back in his father’s custody. While still on probation, B.S.L.
failed to appear for a mandatory review hearing. B.S.L. was arrested and placed at the
Minnesota Corre ctional Fac ility in Red Wing (MCF -Red Wing ), pending a probation
revocation hearing. B.S.L. admitted to violating his probation by using controlled
substances and failing to stay in contact with his court-services officer.
At the hearing, the district court stated that local or regional placement options had
been exhausted because B.S.L. had been to at least six prior placemen ts, but he continued
to disobey probation rules. Consistent with B.S.L.’s court-services officer’s
3
recommendation, the district court issued a two-page order directing that B.S.L. be placed
at MCF-Red Wing. The order contained no specific factual findings.
D E C I S I O N
B.S.L. argues that the district court’s order imposing out -of-home placement at
MCF-Red Wing is not supported by sufficient findings. Specifically, B.S.L. argues that
the district court did not make an adequate finding as to why placement at MCF-Red Wing
is necessary rather than a less-restrictive placement such as Prairie Lakes or with his mother
under intense supervision.
A district court has broad discretion to revoke probation and choose the appropriate
disposition in a juvenile-delinquency case; thus, the disposition will not be reversed unless
there is a clear abuse of discretion. In re Wel fare of R.V. , 702 N.W.2d 294 , 298 (Minn.
App. 2005). But a district court must consider certain factors to ensure such a disposition
“serve[s] established principles of dispositions ,” including but not limited to: (1) the
disposition’s necessity to restore law-abiding conduct in terms of the risk to public safety,
the child’s culpability, the child’s delinquency record, the child’s programming history,
and proportionality; (2) the child’s best interests; (3) if out-of-home placement is ordered,
the child’s needs; (4) the appropriateness of sanctions, such as placement in secure
facilities, if necessary to promote public safety and meet the child’s needs; and (5) local
dispositional criteria. Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(B).
To place a juvenile at MCF -Red Wing, a district court must find that the juvenile
has satisfied the facility’s admissions criteria and that the county has “considered all
appropriate local or regional placements and [has] exhausted potential in-state placements
4
in the geographic region.” Minn. Stat. § 260B.199, subd. 1 (2016). Additionally, “ [t]he
court must state on the record that this effort was made and placements rejected before
ordering a placement or commitment to [MCF-Red Wing].” Id.
The juvenile delinquency rules also require that a dispositional order for out -of-
home placement contain certain written findings of fact to support the disposition. The
written findings of fact must address the following subjects:
(1) why public safety and the best interests of the
child are served by the disposition ordered;

(2) what alternative dispositions were recommended
to the court and why such recommendations were not ordered;
and

(3) if the disposition changes the place of custody of
the child:
(a) the reasons why public safety and the best
interest of the child are not served by preserving the child’s
present custody; and
(b) suitability of the placement, taking into
account the program of the placement facility and assessment
of the child’s actual needs.

Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A); see Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(13) (2016)
(providing that a disposition order authorized by this statute must set forth, in writing “(i)
why the best interests of the child are served by the disposi tion ordered; and (ii) what
alternative dispositions were considered by the court and why such dispositions were not
appropriate in the instant case”).
“A district court’ s failure to make adequate written findings of fact in accordance
with . . . Minn. R. Juv. [Delinq.] P. 15.05, subd. 2(A), in support of a juvenile-delinquency
disposition constitutes reversible error. ” In re Welfare of N .T.K., 619 N.W.2d 209, 210
5
(Minn. App. 2000). However, if the disposition-hearing transcript contains “the requisite
particularized findings” addressing the subjects, “it is appropriate for the district court to
incorporate those findings by reference into that order.” In re Welfare of D.T.P. , 685
N.W.2d 709, 713 (Minn. App. 2004).
Here, the district court’s disposition order fails to comply with Minn. R. Juv. Delinq.
P. 15.05, subd. 2(A) and Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(13) . The district court neither
made the requisite written findings addressing the factors, nor made sufficient oral findings
at the disposition hearing that were incorporated by reference into its order. The order does
not state why the disposition serves public safety, why the disposition serves B.S.L.’s best
interests, why B.S.L.’s present custody is inappropri ate, the alternative dispositions that
were considered, or why the alternative dispositions were not imposed. The order merely
states that B.S.L. was advised of his rights, B.S.L. admitted to violating probation, there is
a factual basis for the admission s, testimony regarding disposition was heard from both
parties, and keeping B.S.L. in his home is contrary to his welfare.
At the disposition hearing, B.S.L.’s probation officer testified about the reasons that
placement at Prairie Lakes and with B.S.L.’ s mother is inappropriate. The district court
stated, on the record, that
the appropria te local or regional placements have been
exhausted at this point in time given the conduct of the
juvenile, his continued [disobedience] of the probation rules
. . . [B.S.L.] doesn’t go to school, he didn’t follow father’s
rules. He was ordered to have no use of mood altering
chemicals and he admitted that he had use[d] . . . cocaine,
marijuana and methamphetamine. He was ordered to be law
abiding and of good b ehavior; that hasn’t happened. He was
ordered to keep all appointments with [c]ourt [s]ervices and
6
that hasn’t happened . . . Based on his lack of follow -through,
the [c]ourt does find that prior placements ar e not appropriate
at this time.

The district court also stated that
the [c]ourt considers all appropriate local or regional
placements and have exhausted potential in -state placements
. . . I do find that the probation officer did consider placement
options other than [MCF-]Red Wing and efforts were made by
the probation agent to consider those other placement options
. . . I think given the prior placement of those prior facilities,
they were considered and not viable options, so essentially
were rejected by the probation officer and therefore Red Wing
is the committed facility.

These statements seem to suggest that the district court considered some alternative
dispositions, but in particular, do not address why MCF-Red Wing was chosen over Prairie
Lakes. They are also totally lacking as to the other required findings.
The district court erred by ordering out -of-home placement without detailing
supportive findings . Therefore, we reverse and remand to the district court for written
findings addressing the rule 15.05, subd. 2(a) , and Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(13) ,
factors.
Reversed and remanded.