In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. C. D. and H. L. D., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1269

In the Matter of the Welfare of the
Children of: S. C. D. and H. L. D., Parents.

Filed February 20, 2018
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Itasca County District Court
File No. 31-JV-16-2005

Dar Nubson, Nubson Law Office, PLLC, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for appellant H.L.D.)

Ellen E. Tholen, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent S.C.D.)

John J. Muhar, Itasca County Attorney, Michael J. Haig, Assistant County Attorney, Grand
Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kim Allen, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

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
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district court’s decision to terminate his parental
rights on the grounds that the district court judge abused her discretion by not recusing
herself for circumstances constituting bias and by determining that reasonable efforts to

2
correct the conditions leading to the children’s out -of-home placement have failed. We
affirm.
FACTS
H.L.D. (father) and S.C.D. (mother) married in 2009 and have three minor children
together. When they lived together, mother generally tended to the children’s needs while
father either slept or spent time in the garage. Father and mother fought often, many times
in front of the children, and father called mother disparaging nam es such as “whore” and
“pig”; one time, one of the children also called mother a “pig.” Although father cooked
meals for the family, mother was responsible for the majority of the day -to-day decisions.
In October 2013, father moved out of the house. In 2015, by court order, father and
mother’s marriage was dissolved. Between October 2013 and May 2015, the children lived
with mother.
On May 16, 2015, a sheriff’s deputy initiated a traffic stop and found mother in
possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. All three children were in the vehicle
with mother and witnessed mother being arrested. Mother was charged with fifth -degree
controlled-substance possession, and the children were placed with their maternal
grandmother.
On May 22, 2015, Itasc a County filed a child in need of protection and services
(CHIPS) petition under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6(8) (2014), alleging that the
children were without proper parental care because of the emotional, mental, or physical
disability or state of im maturity of mother and that the children’s behavior, condition, or
environment were such as to be injurious or dangerous to the children or others under Minn.

3
Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6(9) (2014). Mother and father initially entered denials to the
CHIPS petition.
During a July 2015 pretrial conference, mother reached a settlement with Itasca
County and admitted that the children were in need of protection and services. As a result,
the statutory claim under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6(9), was dismissed. Father again
entered a denial but, as the noncustodial parent, agreed to abide by the conditions imposed
by mother’s settlement with Itasca County. Father testified that he susta ined a traumatic
brain injury 25 years earlier, had been diagnosed with a sleep disorder, major anxiety, and
depression, and was actively participating in individual therapy through Adult
Rehabilitative Mental Health Services (ARMHS). The district court d etermined that the
children were in need of protection and services but ordered that the children continue
residing with mother.
On September 1, 2015, during the pendency of the CHIPS action, father moved for
primary custody of the children. Mother opposed the motion. At an October 2015 review
hearing on father’s motion, the district court concluded that there were safety issues related
to both parents , scheduled an evidentiary hearing , and placed the children in father’s
temporary care pending the outcome of the evidentiary hearing.
At the close of the evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2015, t he district court
transferred custody of the children to Itasca County for placement in foster car e. Father
signed and dated court-approved out-of-home placement plans for each child.

4
The district court held two permanency-proceeding review hearings. At a February
2016 hearing, the district court concluded that out -of-home placement services were still
necessary because neither parent had made sufficient progress to warrant reunification. At
a June 2016 hearing, the district court again determined that out -of-home placement
services were still necessary, reasoning that “it is not realistic to pro ject that either parent
will be able to acquire and execute proper parenting skills . . . in the foreseeable future.”
In July 201 6, the district court ordered Itasca County to file a terminatio n-of-
parental-rights (TPR) petition under Minn. Stat. § 260C.204 (2014), because the children,
at the time of the filing of the CHIPS petition, were all under age eight and had been in
foster care for six months . On July 13, 2016, Itasca County petition ed to terminate
mother’s and father’s parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5) (201 4),
alleging that reasonable efforts to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out -of-
home placement had failed.
In August 2016, father moved for a trial home visit, overnight parenting time, and a
suspension of the permanency proceedings. Mother also brought a motion , requesting a
trial home visit, unsupervised parenting time, and a dismissal or stay of the permanency
proceedings. Father and mother appeared for an admit -deny hearing on the permanency
proceedings and to argue their pending motions. The district court denied both motions in
their entirety, explaining that the record failed to demonstrate that “either parent [had] in
fact made sufficient and lasting positive changes in their parenting abilities and skills as
necessary to otherwise support the relief requested in the motions” and that the children
were “too young” and “too vulnerable” to safely return to either parent.

5
After the district court denied father’s and mother’s motions , fat her and mo ther
jointly moved to remove the district court judge for bias or, alternatively, to continue the
permanency proceedings and expand father’s parenting time. The district court denied
both motions.
Father petitioned the chief judge of the Ninth Judicial District, seeking review of
the district court’s decision to deny father’s removal motion. The chief judge denied
father’s petition. Father then petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition to remove the
district court judge from further proceedings. A special-term panel denied father’s petition.
Mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights to the children on May 16, 2017.
Father appeared for trial on May 23, 2017. By then, the children had been in out-of-home
placement for 564 days. The following persons testified at the six -day trial: mother; the
foster-care mother ; a Ross Resources visitation partner ; a Ross Resources program
director; a mental -health therapist ; an ARMHS worker ; a mental -health practitioner;
psychologist Patricia L. Cortese, Ph.D. ; a second psychologist; father’s mother; an Itasca
County social worker; father’s nonjoint daughter; an acquaintance of father’s ; father; and
the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL). T he district court also admitted approximately
200 exhibits into evidence , including case plans, case goals, progress notes, medical
records, and previous orders. On July 19, 2017, the district court issued an order
terminating father’s parental rights on the ground that reasonab le efforts had failed to
correct the issues leading to the children’s out-of-home placement. Father moved for a
new trial, which the district court denied. This appeal follows.

6
D E C I S I O N
I.
Father contends that the district court judge abused her discretion by denying his
motion to remove herself for cause, reasoning that the judge’s comments on the record and
decision to deny father expanded parenting time demonstrated the judge’s bias.1 A district
court’s decision to deny a recu sal motion is discretionary and “should not be reversed
absent clear abuse of that discretion.” Carlson v. Carlson, 390 N.W.2d 780, 785 (Minn.
App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 1986).
The Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure provide that “[n]o judge shall
preside over any case if that judge is interested in its determination or if that judge might
be excluded for bias from a cting as a juror in the matter.” Min n. R. Juv. Prot. P. 7.07,
subd. 2. The same rules provide that a party may remove a judge upon a motion filed
within ten days after receiving notice of the presiding judge. Id., subd. 3(a), (d). But a
“judge who has presided at a motion or other proceeding may not be removed except upon
an affirmative showing of prejudice on t he part of the judge. ” Id., subd. 3(b). A n

1 A special -term panel of this court previously addressed father’s judicial -bias claim,
concluding that the district court did not abuse it s discretion by not recusing itself. In re
Welfare of Children of S.C.D. , No. A16-1865 (Minn. App. Jan. 10, 2017) (order). In
general, “[n]o petition for rehearing shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals. ” Minn. R.
Civ. App. P. 140.01. But we may address father ’s judicial-bias claim on its merits even
though a special-term panel denied father’s writ of prohibition request. See Troxel v. State,
875 N.W.2d 302, 31 3-14 (Minn. 2016) (denying judicial -bias claim on the merits
notwithstanding a special -term panel denying writ of prohibition) . In this instance, we
choose to do so.

7
affirmative showing of prejudice includes a showing that the judge might be excluded for
bias from acting as a juror in the matter. Id., subd. 3(c).
Father did not request removal of the district court judge until September 2016 —
long after the statutory ten -day time period had lapsed. Father must therefore make an
affirmative showing of prejudice. Id., subd. 3(b). In an effort to do so, father attacks
decisions and statements made by the district court. First, father asserts that in June 2016,
the district court exhibited bias by ordering a permanency petition as to both parents even
though father individually “had substantially complied with the case plan.” Second, father
argues the district court exhibited bias by denying his motion for expanded parenting time.
Third, father argues that the district court exhibited bias by commenting during the admit-
deny hearing:
[Father] has service providers all around him. He has
acknowledged to me he is unable to care for his own needs
without a full time case manager. So you’re saying the case
manager’s going to move in with him and the children and take
care of all of them?

. . . .

I just ask that everyone in here, you know, take off your rose
colored glasses and acknowledge the situation. Do I wish it
was different? I do. Do I like being the only one here who
sees the trouble? No. I just feel like nobody is willing to
acknowledge . . . the risks that these children face. I just don’t
understand it.

Father maintains that the district court’s decision s and comments on the record
demonstrate that the district court “had already made [its] decision that Father was unfit
despite the evidence” and only denied father and mother’s request for a continuance and

8
expanded parenting time because the district court did not like father. Father also contends
that no evidence supports the district court’s “biased conclusions.” We disagree.
Father’s bias claim reflects his dissatisfaction with the district court’s adverse
rulings against him. It is well -established that adverse rulings do not constitute an
affirmative showing of prejudice. See, e.g., Olson v. Olson, 392 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn.
App. 1986). And although the district court made comments relating to father’s ability to
parent, the district court repeatedly said that a trial was necessary to determine whether to
terminate father’s parental rights. See In re Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d 170, 176 (Minn.
App. 1997) (explaining that “the record reflects somewhat harsh responses and questioning
by the [district] court” but nevertheless determining that “the [district] court’s behavior did
not reflect bias against appellants”). After fully reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court judge properly exercised her discretion in denying father’s motion to remove
herself for bias.
II.
Father also maintains that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that
reasonable efforts had failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home
placement, arguing that the efforts were impeded by the district court’s “arbitrary and
biased restriction on contact between Father and the children.”
On appeal from a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights, we review
“the district court’s findings of the underlying or basic facts for clear error, but we review
its determination of whether a particular statutory basis for involuntarily termin ating
parental rights is present for an abuse of discretion.” In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B. ,

9
805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011) , review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012) . We must
“closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine wheth er it was clear and
convincing.” In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008).
“Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” In re Welfare
of M.D.O. , 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990). “ The child’s best i nterests, however,
remain the paramount consideration in every termination case.” Id. The petitioner must
establish by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground exists for terminating
parental rights. In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d 886, 893 (Minn. 1996).
One statutory ground for terminating parental rights exists if reasonable efforts,
under the direction of the district court, have failed to correct the conditions leading to out-
of-home placement. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5) (2016). It is presumed that
reasonable efforts have failed upon a showing that
(i) a child has resided out of the parental home under
court order for a cumulative period of 12 months within the
preceding 22 months. In the case of a child under age eight at
the time the petition was filed alleging the child to be in need
of protection or services, the presumption arises when the child
has resided out of the parental home under court order for six
months unless the parent has maintained regular contact wit h
the child and the parent is complying with the out -of-home
placement plan;
(ii) the court has approved the out -of-home placement
plan required under section 260C.212 and filed with the court
under section 260C.178;
(iii) conditions leading to the out -of-home placement
have not been corrected. It is presumed that conditions leading
to a child’s out -of-home placement have not been corrected
upon a showing that the parent or parents have not substantially
complied with the court’s orders and a reasonable ca se plan;
and

10
(iv) reasonable efforts have been made by the social
services agency to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the
family.

Id. Each of the above four requirements is analyzed in turn.
First, all three children were under age eight at the time of the CHIPS proceeding.
The record also reflects that the children were placed in foster care in November 2015, and
the county petitioned for terminati on of father’s parental rights in July 2016. Therefore,
the district court properly determined that the children had been in foster care for more than
six months. Id., subd. 1(b)(5)(i).
Second, it is undisputed that the district court approved out -of-home placement
plans required under Minn. Stat. § 260C.212 (201 4), and that those placement plans were
filed according to Minn. Stat. § 260C.178 (2014). Id., subd. 1(b)(5)(ii).
Third, the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement had not been
corrected. “It is presumed that conditions leading to a child’s out-of-home placement have
not been corrected upon a showing that the parent or parents have not substantially
complied with the court’s orders and a reasonable case plan .” Id., subd. 1(b)(5)(i ii); see
S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 388 (“[A] case plan that has been approved by the district court is
presumptively reasonable.”).
Here, after mother settled with Itasca County, father agreed to abide by a court-
ordered and court-approved case plan. Father’s case plan required him to demonstrate that
he is willing and capable of providing a safe and stable home for himself and the children;
abstain from the possession, use, or consumption of alcoholic beverages and controlled
substances; not associate with third parties h e knows, or has reason to believe, to be

11
possessing, using, or under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substances; not
knowingly expose the children to third parties he knows, or has reason to believe, are
possessing, using, or under the influen ce of alcohol or other control led substances; abide
by mental-health services including those pertaining to medication management and those
recommended by ARMHS; and cooperate and comply with protective supervision to be
exercised by the county agency for the safety, welfare, and best interests of the children.
Father’s out -of-home placement plan included more than 30 goals, including
cooperating with ARMHS, remaining law abiding, attending and actively participating in
visitation with the children, refrain ing from discussing the case, demonstrating the ability
to manage all three children, understanding and implementing parenting skills that
demonstrated a willingness and ability to care for the children, demonstrating an
understanding of the importance of stability and predictability for his children,
implementing Circles of Security knowledge learned with Dr. Cortese during visits with
the children, learning how to appropriately manage each child ’s in dividual needs and
behaviors, refraining from inappropri ate behavior with Ross Resources employees, and
taking ownership of his part of the child -protection case and articulating what he needed
to improve in order to move forward.
The district court concluded that, despite meeting some of the goals, father had not
substantially complied with tasks that required him to exercise judgment, discretion, or
insight. The district court detailed in particular that father did not remain law abiding
because he was charged with and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft afte r taking money
from a wallet in a store, an event which he justified by saying it would not have happened

12
had the children been present. The district court also explained that while father had
partially complied with attending and actively participating in visits, he ha d not
substantially complied because “he repeatedly talked about the case in front of the
Children, and he made inappropriate comments to Ross Resources staff members that they
perceived as threats.” The district court further determined that father had completed
Circles of Security training but had failed to successfully implement the teachings and that
father had not demonstrated an understanding of the importance of his role in parenting.
The district court’s determination that father had not substantially complied with the
case plan is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Two Ross Resources employees
testified that father continually discussed the pendency of the CHIPS action whenever they
were present during in-home visits. And during one such visit, father asked a female Ross
Resources employee if he could take a picture of her “for personal use,” which he later
described as potential evidence for a local news investigation. Father also told the Ross
Resources employees that he would sue the county and win and that the only reason the
kids misbehaved is because the county took them away from him. Ross Resources
cancelled future visits because of father’s picture request.
In addition to the testimony from the Ross Resources employees, an ARMHS
employee testified that, while father was improving, he still required assistance from an
ARMHS employee to effectively manage his own schedule and complete paperwork .
Dr. Cortese also testified that father had not successfully learned and implemented the
Circles of Security training. In light of the above record evidence, t he district court
properly concluded that father had not substantially complied with the case plan.

13
Fourth, reasonable efforts were made by the social -services agency to rehabilitate
father and reunite the family . Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5)(iv). “The nature of
the services which constitute ‘reasonable efforts’ depends on the problem presented.” S.Z.,
547 N.W.2d at 892. In determining reaso nableness, the district court shall consider
whether services to the children and family were: “(1) relevant to the safety and protection
of the child; (2) adequate to meet the needs of the child and family; (3) culturally
appropriate; (4) available and accessible; (5) consistent and timely; and (6) realistic under
the circumstances.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (20 16). Efforts toward reunification must
be designed to address “the problem presented,” S.Z., 547 N.W.2d at 892, and must include
“real, genuine h elp to see that all things are done that might conceivably improve the
circumstances of the parent and the relation ship of the parent with the child[ren].” In re
Welfare of M.A ., 408 N.W.2d 227, 236 (Minn. App. 1987) (quotation omitted), review
denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1987).
An Itasca County social worker testified that Itasca County Health and Human
Services (ICHHS) and Beltrami County provided father with the following services to
improve his parenting skills : (1) a parenting capacity assessment; (2) a diagnostic
assessment; (3) a rule 25 assessment; (4) individual therapy; (5) medication management
(6) gas vouchers and transportation assistance; (7) Circles of Security training; (8) an
ARMHS employee; (9) in -home services; (10) drug testing; (11) superv ised visitation;
(12) training in family group decision -making; (13) a neuropsychological evaluation; and
(14) case-management services. The district court determined that th ose services were
“realistic, consistent, culturally appropriate, timely, availab le and accessible, as well as

14
adequate and relevant to the child protection and family issues” and that those efforts were
“reasonable . . . to rehabilitate Father and reunite the family.”
Father first reasons that the Circles of Security program —a national, standardized
program that focuses on attachment issues for parents and children —was not reasonable
because the district court did not allow him expanded parenting time during the pendency
of the permanency proceedings. We disagree.
Dr. Cortese testified that she chose the Circles of Security program based on the
uniqueness of father’s family. Although “theoretical,” Dr. Cortese testified that she paired
father’s program with in -home training services designed to help father implement the
program’s teachings. The Circles of Security program was also designed to improve
attachment issues between father a nd the children. Dr. Cortese testified that she
implemented the Circles of Security program to help father and the children maintain a
relationship despite being separated. Further, the children’s GAL te stified that father’s
case plan was tailored appropriately to each child but also focused on improving how all
three children interact ed with people in the community and helping the children stay
focused, concentrate, and follow through on tasks rather than acting on impulse.
Father also contends that the efforts were not reasonable because the county delayed
two months in implementing his in-home service visits. Dr. Cortese recommended starting
in-home services two months after father completed the Circles of Security program. But
as the district court explained, father received in-home services for 11 months on a weekly
basis. Therefore, we agree with the district court that a two-month delay over an 11-month
period did not render the services unreasonable.

15
After considering the array of services provided to father, we conclude that t he
district court acted within its discretion in determining that the county ’s efforts were
reasonable. See S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 387 (affirming termination of parental rights and
concluding efforts were reasonable where county provided an array of services, “including
in-home parenting education through shared family foster care, an in-home social worker,
group therapy and individual counseling, sessions with the Intervention Program for
Women and Invest Early Parenting, and frequent meetings with her assigned social
worker”); S.Z., 547 N.W.2d at 892 (concluding efforts were reasonable where, in light of
the parent’s serious and persistent mental illness, the mental-health services “were tailored
to the problem that prevented him from being able to parent”). Therefore, there is clear
and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that reas onable efforts
to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement have failed under
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5).
Last, we must determine if the district court abused its discretion by concluding that
terminating father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. In deciding
whether to terminate parental rights, the best interests of the child must be the paramount
consideration. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2016). “In analyzing the best interests of
the child, the court must balan ce three factors: (1) the child’ s interest in preserving the
parent-child relationship; (2) the p arent’s interest in preserving the parent -child
relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P.,
678 N.W.2d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted) . “Where the interests of

16
parent and child conflict, the interests of the child are paramount.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 7.
Here, the district court explained that, although father strongly desires to preserve
his relationship with the children and although the children have a positive relationship
with him, the children’s needs for a stable, predictable environment “greatly outweigh any
interest in preserving the child-parent relationship with Father.” The record supports the
district court’s conclusion. Trial testimony from Dr. Cortese, the ARMHS employee, and
Ross Resources employees confirms that father cannot meet his children’s needs because
of his mental and physical disabilities, along with his inability to accept responsibility for
the children’s behaviors. For example, Dr. Cortese testified that the children require
permanency and none of the children demonstrates secure attachment with father. She also
stated that the children need a caregiver who can meet their high needs. The children’s
GAL testified that “it would be in the best interests of the children for father’s rights to be
terminated” because it would allow the children “to be in a stable, consistent home with
follow through.” In addition, the Itasca County social worker testified that it would not be
in the children’s best interests to give father more time to make changes, reasoning that the
children “need something stable” and that it is not realistic to project that father could
improve over time.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that it is in the children’ s best interests to terminate
father’s parental rights.
Affirmed.