A17-1456

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1453
A17-1456

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. M. S. and N. K., Parents.

Filed April 16, 2018
Affirmed
Florey, Judge

Redwood County District Court
File No. 64-JV-17-55

Kenneth R. White, Law Office of Kenneth R. White, P.C., Mankato, Minnesota (for
appellant R. M. S.)

Jennifer Thon, Amy J. Klugherz, Steven D. Winkler, Jones Law Office, Mankato,
Minnesota (for appellant N. K.)

Jenna M. Peterson, Redwood County Attorney , Joseph M. Sanow, Rudolph P. Dambeck,
Assistant County Attorneys, Redwood Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)

Amy Bohnen, Sleepy Eye, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Florey, Pres iding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FLOREY, Judge
In this consolidated juven ile-protection appeal, appellants challenge the district
court’s termination of their parental rights a nd the findings supporting that termination.
They challenge the district court’s determinations that termination is in the children’s best
2
interests and that the county put forth reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Both parents
also raise additional, individual arguments. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-mother R. M. S. and appellant-father N. K. are the parents of B.A.K.,
born in 2012, and O.M.K., born in 2015. B.A.K. suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) and posttrauma tic stress disorder (PTSD). 1 Mother has another child,
M.L., who is not a party to these proceedings. The parents have a history of involvement
with child-in-need-of-protection-or-services (CHIPS) cases; three CHIPS cases preceded
the present termination case.
The first CHIPS case occurred in 2014 and 2015. In May 2014, B.A.K. was found,
at the age of two, wandering two blocks from home. He was reportedly outside the home
for at least 45 minutes without either parent coming to look for him. A citizen returned
him to the home where a young girl answered the door and went to get father, who appeared
approximately 15 minutes later. The citizen contacted law enforcement. Arrangements
were made for B.A.K. to stay with mother’s parents, a safety plan was developed, and
B.A.K. was allowed to return home. In July 2014, mother reported M.L., then eight years
old, missing; the child was located several hours later across town. The next month, B.A.K.
was again found wandering several blocks fr om home. A CHIPS pe tition was filed, and
B.A.K. was placed outside the home for a pproximately eight-and -a-half months, from
August 3, 2014, until Ap ril 23, 2015. Father was incar cerated on felony theft charges

1 According to the termination of parental rights petition, mother used methamphetamine
while pregnant with B.A.K.
3
during this period. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine in September 2014. She
successfully completed treatment, and B.A.K. was returned to her custody in April 2015.
Two months later, the case was closed.
In early 2016, the county became concer ned that mother was again using drugs.
Mother allegedly assaulted M.L.’s father and was criminally ch arged, but she was
ultimately acquitted. During th e criminal proceedings, the county observed that mother
was having cognitive difficulties a nd suspected drug use as th e cause. On February 12,
2016, the county filed the second CHIPS petition, which was based on allegations set forth
in mother’s criminal case.
Following the filing of the second CHIPS petition, issues with parental supervision
and drug use continued to arise. In March 20 16, the county received a report that B.A.K.
was again wandering from home. In May, a report was recei ved that mother was using
drugs. She was asked to submit to testing, bu t she did not respond. In June, B.A.K. was
again reportedly outside the home and unsupervised. The parents reported that they needed
therapy to facilitate better parenting and decrease conflict. The county referred the parents
to an intensive in-hom e family therapy program. Becau se of mother’s acquittal and the
new allegations concerning dr ug use and supervision issu es, the second CHIPS petition
was dismissed and a third CHIPS petition was filed on June 15, 2016.
On July 7, 2016, the children were placed on an em ergency hold after B.A.K. was
seen by a neighbor crying alone outside. When law enforcement arrived, B.A.K. said that
he did not know the whereabouts of his parents. An officer announced his presence at the
residence. There was no response. The offi cer went into the residence’s basement and
4
found O.M.K. in her crib without a diaper. Mother arrived at the residence, stating that she
had gone to borrow a vehicle and that father was left in charge. Father was sleeping
upstairs. On July 11, 2016, the children were placed out of the home. A little over a week
later, mother was arrested for motor-vehicle theft. In August 2016, the children were
adjudicated CHIPS.
On August 25, 2016,2 a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition was filed, but
it was withdrawn in November because the county had failed to obtain court approval for
the parents’ case plans. New case plans we re developed and signe d by the parents on
February 23, 2017. The case plans identified family need s to include parenting skills,
counseling, mental health, and chemical health. Mother was expected to participate in in-
home family therapy and parenting classes, a ttend meetings as required by her chemical-
use assessment, remain sober, submit to tes ting, financially support the children, and
demonstrate the ability to supervise the children. Father was expected to participate in in-
home family therapy, complete a diagnostic assessment and follow any recommendations,
continue to participate in parenting classes, remain sober, submit to testing, financially
support the children, and demonstrate the ability to supervise the children. Father was later
ordered to undergo a chemical-use assessment.
The parents generally showed a lack of commitment in engaging services and
maintaining contact with the children until late December 2016. For example, after the
children were removed from the home, father “scheduled his orientation appointment with

2 The district court’s order says August 2017, but this is incorrect.
5
the coordinator of the visitation center for July 25, 2016, but was a no show,” and the
parents “did not contact [the visitation cent er] for more than a mo nth after the children
were removed from their care to arrange vis its.” Mother was unsuccessfully discharged
from chemical-use treatment on December 17, 2016, and the parents missed visits with the
children on December 6 and December 22. However, based upon the parents’ progress in
late December, including engaging in paren ting classes and working with a parenting
mentor, visits with the children progressed fro m supervised to unsupervised in February
2017. Unsupervised visits continued until March, when the parents’ progress unraveled.
On March 2, 2017, the parents admitte d to missing a parenting class and not
attending sobriety meetings, and father admitted that he ha d not scheduled his diagnostic
assessment. The parents also stopped communicating with their parent mentor and stopped
setting appointments with their parenting instructor. The county requested that the parents
submit to drug testing. Father’s test was clean, but mother was unable to produce a sample
and left the testing facility despite being told not to leave. Mother later returned with a
suspicious sample, and she was deemed to have provided a positive result. Following the
test, unsupervised visitation was cancelled. A March 3 test of moth er’s hair indicated
negative results for drug use. Mother was asked to submit to testing on March 15, but did
not show. On March 24, mother was asked to provide a sample, but she did not, and the
county deemed her failure a positive result. An April 12 hair-follicle test for both parents
showed positive results for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
On April 28, 2017, the county filed a se cond TPR petition. The county sought
termination on four grounds, alleging that th e parents (1) neglected their parental duties;
6
(2) were palpably unf it; (3) failed to correct the conditions that le d to the out-of-home
placement; and (4) neglected the children while they were in foster care.
On July 26, 2017, a trial was held. Testimony was received from an early childhood
therapist; a parent mentor; a parenting instructor; a social worker; a chemical-dependency
worker; a child-protection investigator; the guardian ad litem; mother; and father. By most
accounts, the parents had complie d substantially with their case plans in January and
February of 2017. Things deteriorated in March and Ap ril. Following the positive drug
test in April, the parents’ compliance with the case plans was sporadic.
On August 24, 2017, the district court filed an order terminating the parents’ rights
to B.A.K. and O.M.K. The court concluded that the county proved three statutory grounds
for termination: (1) the parents neglected thei r parental duties; (2) the parents failed to
correct the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement; and (3) the parents neglected
the children while they were in foster care. The court concluded that it was in the best
interests of the children that the parents’ ri ghts be terminated. Each parent appealed
separately, and this court consolidated those appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Both parents argue that the record does not support a termination of parental rights,
that termination is not in the children’s best interests, and that the county failed to make
reasonable efforts. We first address these sh ared issues before turning to the parents’
individual arguments.

7
I. Clear and convincing evidence supports the dist rict court’s termination of
parental rights.

A district court may termin ate parental rights if ther e is clear and convincing
evidence establishing at least one statutory ground for termination and termination is in the
child’s best interests. In re Welfare of Children of R.W., 678 N.W.2d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004).
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 fi nding is clearly erroneous if it is either
manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence 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). The ultimate determin ation that the findings fit the statutory
criteria is reviewed 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. 17, 2012).
The district court concluded that ther e was sufficient evid ence to support a
termination of parental rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2) (2016),
which permits a district court to terminate a parent’s parental rights if it finds
that the parent has substantially , continuously, or repeatedly
refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed upon
that parent by the parent and ch ild relationship, including but
not limited to providing the child with necessary food,
clothing, shelter, education, and other care and control
necessary for the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health
and development, if the parent is physically and financially
able, and either reasonable efforts by the social services agency
have failed to correct the conditi ons that formed the basis of
the petition or reasonable efforts would be futile and therefore
unreasonable.

8
To terminate parental rights under this statutory basis, the district court must find that “at
the time of termination, the parent is not pres ently able and willing to assume [his or her]
responsibilities and that the parent’s neglect of these duties will continue for a prolonged,
indeterminate period.” In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T. , 814 N.W.2d 76, 90 (Minn. App.
2012) (quotations omitted).
The record indicates an ongoing and repeat ed pattern of neglectful conduct by the
parents. B.A.K., at the age of two, was found wandering blocks f r o m h o m e . H e w a s
reportedly away from the home for at least 45 minutes without anyone coming to look for
him. Despite efforts by the co unty, the same pattern of events continued to unfold again
and again. The lack of supervision was not limited to B.A.K. Eight-year-old M.L. also
went missing, only to be found hours later across town.
Testimony was received indicati ng that the parents’ lack of care and supervision
was a problem that would persist for the forese eable future. The parent mentor testified
that mother is not in a position to parent because she lacks communication with father, and
father is not in a position to parent because of mental-health issues. The guardian ad litem
testified that she did not believe that the parents could provide the necessary structure and
supervision for the children.
The parents effectively dela yed and derailed reunificati on efforts and efforts to
instill in them the skills to provi de that structure and supervision. The parents were slow
in establishing visitation and ob taining services. When they did eventually engage in
services, and a trial home visit was near, th ey thwarted their own progress by breaking
communication with service providers, missing appointments, and using
9
methamphetamine. This hindered the county’s ability to provide services, such as in-home
family therapy. It also hi ndered the county’s ability to observe family dynamics for an
appreciable time.
The record indicates continuing chemical-use issues, which may have precipitated
the lack of supervision. Both pare nts tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine in April 2017. The parents failed to properly address these issues.
Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from out patient treatment in December 2016. It
was recommended that father undergo chemical -use treatment, but he had not started
treatment at the time of trial.
“Failure to satisfy requirements of a court-ordered case plan provides evidence of a
parent’s noncompliance with the duties a nd responsibilities under section 260C.301,
subdivision 1(b)(2).” In re Welfare of Children of K.S.F. , 823 N.W.2d 656, 666 (Minn.
App. 2012). The district court found that the parents’ “lack of effort and progress on even
the most basic components of the case plan” indicates that they have not acquired “the tools
necessary to fully address th eir methamphetamine abuse [and] parenting deficiencies.”
Given the evidence that both parents failed to correct their chemical-use issues and their
persistent, ongoing parenting deficiencies, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
terminating parental rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2).
II. The record supports the district court’s determination that termination is in
the children’s best interests.

Both parents challenge the district court’s conclusion that it is in the children’s best
interests that parental rights be terminated. In a termination-of-parental-rights case, the
10
best interests of the children is “the para mount consideration.” Mi nn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 7 (2016). A district court must make “findings regarding how the order is in the best
interests of the child.” Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 42.08, subd. 1(b).
In analyzing the best interests of the children, the district court must balance three
factors: “(1) the [children’s] interest in pr eserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the
parent’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; and (3) any competing
interest[s] of the [children].” In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1992).
We apply an abuse-of-discreti on standard of review to a district court’s conclusion that
termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests. J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 905.
We have held that a district court’s findings may provide adequate support for
termination even when those findings are not greatly detailed. See In re Welfare of Child
of W.L.P. , 678 N.W.2d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004). The district court noted that the
children need capable and predictable paren ting for growth and de velopment and that
B.A.K. has additional developmental need s resulting from his PTSD and ADHD. The
district court acknowledged that the parents love the children, but found that “[n]either
parent has demonstrated a cons istent ability to hold the ch ildren’s needs above their own
needs.” The district court sufficiently considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
III. The record supports the conclusion that the county made reasonable efforts to
reunify the family.

Both parents argue that the county did no t undertake reasonable efforts to reunify
the family. When a child is removed from the family home, the responsible social-services
11
agency must make “reasonable efforts” to reunify the parent an d child. Minn. Stat.
§ 260.012(a) (2016). A district court must make findings as to whether the county provided
reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the parent and reunify the child and parent. Id., (h) (2016).
What constitutes “reasonable efforts” de pends on the problems presented. T.R., 750
N.W.2d at 664.
The district court found that the county had put forth re asonable efforts directed at
rectifying the parents’ chemical-use issues and supervision shortcom ings. The district
court’s conclusion is supported by the record. The guardian ad litem provided testimony,
which the district court deemed credible, regarding the numerous services provided to the
parents including transportation, mental-health referrals, a co uples-therapy referral, in-
home therapy, chemical-use as sessments, treatment referrals, a parent mentor, parenting
classes, and parenting-time services. The district court’s finding that the county put forth
reasonable efforts is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.
IV. Mother’s additional arguments are unavailing.
Mother argues that “the most critical factual findings by the [district] court lack
support in the record.” 3 She asserts that the district court relied on three “failings” by

3 The county asserts that mother is procedurally barred from arguing that the district court’s
findings are clearly erroneous because she did not raise that issue in a posttrial motion. The
county is incorrect. “[A]n order terminating parental rights is an appealable order.” In re
Welfare of L.M.M., 372 N.W.2d 431, 43 3 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Oct.
18, 1985). Absent a posttrial motion, this court’s scope of review includes “the sufficiency
of the evidence and the adequacy of the findings to support the conclusions of law.” In re
Welfare of S.G., 390 N.W.2d 336, 341 (Minn. App. 1986). We are directed to review the
findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly
erroneous. In re Welfare of P.R.L., 622 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Minn. 2001).
12
mother in terminating her parental rights: (1) her methamphetamine use; (2) her failure to
adequately supervise the children; and (3) her lack of parenting skills resulting from
mental-health issues. She asserts that none of the three claimed deficiencies is supported
by the record.
A. Methamphetamine use
Mother concedes that she has had methamphetamine-addiction issues, but she
asserts that the record, as it relates to this case, indicate s “at most, a temporary relapse in
the spring of 2017.” She argues that the record does not indicate that her chemical-
dependency issues affected her parenting.
The district court’s findings indicate mother’s ongoing struggles with
methamphetamine and failure to consistently submit to testing. The court found that
mother ignored an order to su bmit to testing on July 12, 2016, following the emergency-
protective-care hearing, and failed to submit to testing again the follo wing day. Mother
refused to provide a hair samp le on July 14, but did submit a urine sample that tested
positive for methamphetamine. Mother completed a chemical-use assessment on October
4, 2016, which recommended outpatient treatmen t. She started outpatient treatment on
November 28, 2016. She refused to su bmit to testing on December 9, 2016, 4 and was
unsuccessfully discharged from outpatient tr eatment in December 2016. After making
progress in late December 2016 and January 2017, mother again began refusing to submit
to testing, and she submitted a positive test in April 2017. Following the positive test and

4 The district court’s order says December 2017, but this is incorrect.
13
an updated chemical-use assessment in May, mother was initially directed to undergo
inpatient treatment, but she disputed this recommendation and requested outpatient
treatment. Ultimately, she was instructed to attend outpatient treatment, but she overslept
and missed her initial intake and did not star t the program until July 10, 2017, two weeks
before trial.
Contrary to mother’s assertion that she only experienced a shor t relapse in early
2017, the record indicates an ongoing pattern of methamphetamine use and failure to fully
comply with testing and treatment recomme ndations. The record supports the district
court’s findings on mother’s ongoing chemical-use issues.
B. Inadequate supervision
Mother acknowledges that B.A.K. has “wandered on some occasions,” but she
asserts that the child’s wandering spells are a result of his ADHD and PTSD, and she argues
that no harm has befallen the child. The record indicates an ongoing and troubling pattern
of insufficient parental supervision. Alt hough no physical harm actually befell the
children, such in jury is not a requirement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2).
Mother argues that there were no incidents near the time of the termination proceedings.
But, the children were out of the parental home, except for some unsupervised visitation in
February and early March 2017. Mother asserts that there were no failings related to
O.M.K., but testimony was received indicati ng that mother could not provide necessary
structure and supervision for O.M.K. The record supports the district court’s findings and
conclusions concerning inadequate supervision.

14
C. Mental health
Mother argues that the district court expressed significant concerns over her mental
health. She asserts that she addressed her mental health by completing a mental-health
assessment and entering into therapy.
The district court did not express significa nt concern over mother’s mental health,
and no specific diagnoses were discussed. Rather, the primary concern, beyond substance
abuse, was mother’s “parenting deficiencies,” and specifically the lack of supervision. To
this end, and in regard to mother’s case-pl an compliance, the court did discuss mother’s
diagnostic assessment that occurred “in the fall of 2016.” The court stated that the
assessment was “invalid due to obfuscation and guardedness.” The court found that mother
never returned to complete a “less-guarded” assessment.
Contrary to the district court’s finding, it appears that mother did return, she was
less guarded, and she received a recommendation of “therapy as needed.” Although mother
claimed to have started therapy approximately two months before trial, she refused to sign
releases so that the nature of the therap y could be verified. Given the malleable
recommendation of therapy as needed, and the lack of any specific case-plan requirement
that mother undergo an updated assessment or attend individual therapy, mother’s failure
to undergo regular individual therapy cannot be deemed a noncompliance with her case
plan. However, sufficient evidence in the record still supports th e termination of her
parental rights given her persistent failure to adequately supervise her children, her ongoing
substance-abuse issues, and her failure to substantially comply with her case-plan
requirements.
15
D. O.M.K.
Lastly, mother argues that the record offers no factual basis to support a termination
of her rights to O.M.K. There are fewer instan ces of inadequate care specific to O.M.K.
However, the lapses in the care of B.A.K. a nd M.L. are evidence of systemic parenting
deficiencies. Likewise, mother’s ongoing pattern of substance abuse evidences a repeated
failure “to comply with the duties imposed upon that parent by the parent and child
relationship,” and mother’s failure to comply with her case plan provides further evidence
of her noncompliance with those duties. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2); K.S.F.,
823 N.W.2d at 666. The record is sufficient to support a termination of mother’s rights to
O.M.K.
V. Father’s additional arguments are unavailing.
Father argues that there wa s insufficient evidence to ju stify the termination of his
parental rights and that mother was the more culpable party. He acknowledges that he “did
not fully comply with the case plans,” but he argues that he “has corrected the conditions
that led to the children being placed out of the home.”
In terminating father’s parental rights, the district court relied on father’s chemical-
use issues and parenting defici encies, particularly his failu re to properly supervise the
children, as well as his failure to comply with th e requirements of his case plan. As
previously discussed, the reco rd supports the termination of his parental rights. While
father asserts that mother is the more culpable part y, the record indicates that father was
also culpable. B.A.K. twice went wandering from the home while father was present. In
May 2014, after a citizen returned B.A.K. to the home, it was father who ultimately came
16
to the door some 15 minutes later, took B.A.K. inside, and closed the door. Father later
told police that he and mother had been sleeping. Then, in July 2016, a neighbor observed
B.A.K. crying outside. Law enforcement responded, and father was found sleeping
upstairs.
The record indicates that father more consistently submitted to testing than mother,
but he did test positive for methamphetami ne in April 2017 and failed to follow
recommendations to address his chemical-use issues. It was recommended that he undergo
chemical-use treatment, but he had not started treatment at the time of trial. He also failed
to verify his attendance at alcoholics-anonymous meetings. Contrary to father’s assertion
that he corrected his parenting deficiencies, a parent mentor testified that he is not in a
position to parent because of mental-health issues, and the guardian ad litem testified that
she did not believe that father could provide the necessary structure and supervision for the
children.
Father asserts that his “behavior between March 2 and April 25 was not significantly
different and did not justify a termination of his parental rights.” But, father himself
testified that he tested positive for metham phetamine in April 20 17 because he “took a
pill,” and “ended up taking more, got sick, kind of suicidal in a sense.” This suggests
ongoing chemical-use and mental-health issues, issues which father did not take substantial
steps to address, despite the availability of services. The record indicates that father went
to two individual therapy sessions, but di d not show for two other sessions and was
discharged “unsuccessfully.” Father had not started treatment at the time of trial.
17
Like mother, father argues that the record is insufficient to support a termination of
his rights to O.M.K. Father’s substance abuse, mental-health issues, and failure to comply
with his case plan provide suffi cient evidence of his failure to comply with his parental
duties as they relate to O.M.K. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2); K.S.F., 823
N.W.2d at 666. Given the lack of case -plan compliance, and more importantly, the
evidence showing that father c ontinues to lack sufficient pa renting skills to adequately
supervise and care for his children, the dist rict court did not abuse its discretion in
terminating his parental rights.
Affirmed.