In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: V. V. B. and I. I. L., Parents.

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1171

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: V. V. B. and I. I. L., Parents.

Filed January 22, 2018
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-JV-17-278

Patricia Zenner, Zenner Law Office, Stillwater, Minnesota (for appellant V.V.B.)

Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Kathryn M. Timm, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent Anoka County)

Daniel Sadowski, Assistant County Public Defender, Anoka, Minnesota (for child C.L.)

Jena Schuler, Ramsey, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Sara McKlugell, Ramsey, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presid ing Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Bjorkman,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
In this appeal challenging the district court’s terminat ion of her parental rights,
mother argues that the statutory grounds fo r termination are not supported by clear and
convincing evidence. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant V.V.B. (mother) is the mother of C.L., who was born in 2006. Mother
married I.L.L. (father) in 2002, but they divo rced in 2010 following father’s arrest for
promoting prostitution of mother and endangering C.L. by having a loaded gun in C.L.’s
closet. Following the divorce, mother obtained sole physica l custody of C.L., and father
was awarded supervised parenting time.
In January 2016, mother was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold after she brought
C.L. to a hospital claiming that she and C.L. had been sexually assaulted. Mother also
claimed that C.L. had had a microchip implan ted in her and had been poisoned. Testing
revealed these claims to be false. During the hold, mother denied that she had mental
illness, refused medication, and claimed she was sexually assaulted again while she was
staying at the hospital. In April 2016, mother brought C.L. to the hos pital to treat C.L.’s
sore throat and stomachache, which C.L. ha d been suffering from for a long time. The
hospital diagnosed C.L. with strep throat and mononucleosis and prescribed medicine. A
few days later, mother again brought C.L. to the hospital, alleging that “squatters at home”
had been raping her and C.L. on a daily basis. Hospital staff promptly transported C.L. to
a children’s hospital for a sexual-assault examination and reported the allegations to Anoka
County Social Services (the county). Upon receiving this report, the county assigned the
case to a social worker.
The social worker contacted mother and father. During a phone call with the social
worker, mother denied her mental illness, refused to talk with the social worker, and hung
up. Father, in contrast, expressed his conc ern for C.L.’s academic struggles and living
3
conditions. The social worker visited C.L.’s school and heard from her teachers that C.L.
was falling behind academically and that moth er refused to let C.L. receive special-
education services. The social worker also talked to C.L. During the conversation, C.L.
broke down, started crying, and acknowledged mother’s odd behavior.
A few days later, mother was transported to the emergency room after she reported
to the police that she was rape d. After examining her, the hospital staff again placed her
on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. She was diagnosed with delusional disorder and psychosis,
but was discharged after adamantly refusing all medical services. After her discharge,
father filed an Order for Protection (OFP) on behalf of C.L. The court granted an ex parte
OFP for one week in duration, which was di smissed thereafter. However, even after the
dismissal of the ex parte OFP, C.L. remained in father’s care because C.L. stated she felt
safer at father’s house. Meanwhile, mother continued to deny her need for mental-health
services to the social worker.
On June 6, 2016, the county filed a child in need of protection and services (CHIPS)
petition, which mother contested. The case wa s transferred to a diffe rent social worker,
who developed a case plan recommending th at mother complete psychological and
psychiatric evaluations and participate in individual or family therapy. The social worker
submitted the case plan to the district court on the CHIPS trial date. However, mother did
not appear, and the district court granted the CHIPS petition by default. The county placed
C.L. in foster care on October 12, 2016, and the social worker submitted an updated case
plan to the district court. The updated cas e plan prescribed addi tional requirements for
mother, including completion of a urine test and a parenting assessment. Despite the
4
district court’s order for mother’s compliance with the updated case plan, she did not satisfy
any of its requirements. Moth er did not submit any urinalys is specimens, refused to sign
releases permitting the county’s referral to a parenting assessment, and refused to visit C.L.
in foster care under supervision. The social worker attempted to contact mother multiple
times, including calling her at l east once a month, setting meetings before and after the
court hearings, visiting her house , and sending her letters. Mo st of the social worker’s
attempts failed. When the so cial worker successfully co nnected with mo ther, mother
adamantly refused to cooperate. The social worker also wo rked with C.L., who has been
happy and thriving in foster care.
The county filed a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) on February 24,
2017. The district court terminated father’s parental rights after he voluntarily agreed to
it. Following a TPR hearing on June 14, 2017, the district court terminated mother’s
parental rights to C.L. In its thorough findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order filed
on July 10, 2017, the district court found that there was clear and convincing evidence of
two statutory grounds supporti ng the TPR under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(5)
and (8) (2016). The district court also found that the count y had made reasonable efforts
toward reunification of C.L. with mother and determined that the TPR was in C.L.’s best
interests. On appeal, mother challenges only the adequacy of the ev identiary support for
the statutory bases for the TPR.

5
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated mother’s
parental rights because its statutory de termination is supported by clear and
convincing evidence.

Mother argues that the statutory grounds for the TPR are not supported by clear and
convincing evidence. We disagree.
A district court may terminate parental rights if clear and convincing evidence
establishes at least one statutory ground for termination and if termination is in the child’s
best interests. In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L. , 853 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Minn. 2014). On
appeal, we review the district court’ s findings of fact for clear error. In re Welfare of
Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). “A finding is clearly erroneous if
it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the eviden ce or not reasonably supported
by the evidence as a whole.” In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656, 660-61
(Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). “Neverthel ess, [an appellate court] defer[s] to the
district court’s decision to terminate parental rights.” Id. at 661. But we review the
ultimate determination that the findings fit the statutory criteria for an abuse of discretion.
In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B. , 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011), review
denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
A district court may terminate parental rights if clear and convincing evidence
establishes that, “following th e child’s placement out of home, reasonable efforts, under
the direction of the court, have failed to correct the conditions l eading to the child’s
6
placement.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5).1 Here, the district court took judicial
notice of the conditions leadin g to the child’s out-of-home placement as stated in the
CHIPS petition. The CHIPS petition noted that C.L. was a child in need of protection or
services due to the combina tion of mother’s serious me ntal-health issues and the
detrimental educational and mental effect thos e issues have on C.L. The district court
further found that the county made reasonable e fforts, under the direction of the court, to
correct these conditions by developing and attempting to work on a case plan with mother.
The district court also found that mother refused to cooperate with th e county to correct
the conditions that led to C.L.’s out-of-home placement. On this record, these findings are
not clearly erroneous. Further, these findings satisfy the statutory criteria of subdivision
1(b)(5). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that reasonable
efforts have failed to correct the conditions leading to the child’s out-of-home placement.
The district court’s finding that the co unty made reasonable efforts under the
direction of the court to correct the conditions that led to C.L.’s out-of-home placement is
also supported by clear and co nvincing evidence. The hospital records show that mother
had serious mental-health issues that led to the out-of-home placement of C.L. The social
workers testified that the county made reasonable efforts to correct these conditions when

1 The district court may presume that reasona ble efforts have failed upon a showing of
several conditions. See Minn. Stat. § 260C. 301, subd. 1(b)(5). If a child not younger than
age eight has resided out of the parental home under court order for a cumulative period of
12 months within the preceding 22 months, the presumption applies. Id. subd. 1(b)(5)(i).
Here, the presumption does not apply as the district court made a specific finding that “C.L.
has been in court-ordered out-of-home placement for just shy of 12 months or 349 days.”
Nevertheless, § 260 C. 301, subd. 1(b)(5), further provides that the court can still terminate
parental rights prior to one year.
7
it developed and submitted the case plan and attempted to contact mother on numerous
occasions to facilitate her compliance.
The record further supports by clear and convincing evidence the district court’s
finding that mother refused to cooperate with the county to correct the conditions that led
to C.L.’s out-of-home placement. Mother fa iled to satisfy any of the case plan’s
requirements that she work on her mental h ealth, chemical health, parenting skills, and
ability to meet C.L.’s needs. The social worker who developed the case plan testified that
mother neither completed a psychological and psychiatric evaluation nor participated in
counseling, which were required to improve mother’s mental health. Mother did not
provide a urinalysis specimen, even after having been specifically ordered to do so by the
district court. As a result, the county could not verify whether mother had any substance-
abuse issues. Mother did not complete a pa renting assessment and did not sign a release
allowing the county to make referrals for her to participate in services, both of which were
required to satisfy the requirements that mo ther improve her pare nting skills. Mother
avoided the county’s efforts to contact her when she failed to appear at scheduled meetings
and declined to answer her phone when the county called her.
Mother argues that evidence supporting th e TPR under subdivision 1(b)(5) is not
clear and convincing because she submitted negative urinalysis specimens to her medical
appointment and mental-health facilities, wh ich indicated that she does not have any
substance-abuse issues. She also argues she was diligent in caring for C.L. as evidenced
by their visit to the hospital to treat C.L .’s strep throat and mononucleosis, which
demonstrates that a parental assessment was not necessary. Both arguments lack merit.
8
First, the submission of negative urinalys is specimens to medi cal institutions was
independent of the case plan developed by th e county and occurred six months before its
submission to the district cour t. Second, C.L.’s one approp riate hospital visit, to treat
symptoms which C.L. had been suffering fro m for a long time, was followed by several
other visits to the hospital where mother cl aimed that she and C.L. were both sexually
assaulted.
In light of mother’s noncompliance with her case plan and her avoidance of the
county’s contact, when compliance and contact were both part of the agency’s reasonable
efforts to correct the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated mother’s parental rights
to C.L. under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5), because its decision was supported by
clear and convincing evidence.2
Affirmed.

2 Because we conclude that th is statutory ground is met, we need not consider the other
statutory ground relied upon by the district court. In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T. 814
N.W.2d 76, 92 (Minn. App. 2012).