In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. R. P. and S. K. A. f/k/a S. K. W., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0477

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
C. R. P. and S. K. A. f/k/a S. K. W., Parents.

Filed August 6, 2018
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-JV-17-1823

David A. Jaehne, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant C.R.P.)

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Jennifer L. Jackson, Assistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota County Social Services)

S.K.A., Maplewood, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Natasha Solem Walker, West St. Paul, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Pres iding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district cour t’s transfer of legal and physical custody
of the minor child to respondent-mother. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant-father C.R.P., and respondent -mother S.K.A. f/k/a S.K.W., are the
parents of J.M.P., born in September 2006. The parties were never married but were in a
relationship until September 2008, when moth er obtained an order for protection (OFP)
against father. Two months later, J.M.P. was removed from mother’s care due to
allegations of physical abuse. At the time, mother suffere d from posttraumatic stress
disorder and chemical-dependency issues. Orders were later filed in March 2010, granting
father sole legal and physical custody of J.M.P.
In 2015, the district court ordered the par ties to begin therapy to reunify mother with
J.M.P. Although father initially failed to cooperate with reuni fication efforts, mother saw
J.M.P. on March 5, 2017, after father cont acted mother and informed her that J.M.P.
wanted to see her. At about the same time, father began exhibiting behavior consistent with
mental illness. And on March 21, 2017, father’s wife obtained an OFP against father based
on allegations of threatening and stalking behavior.
On April 4, 2017, respondent Dakota Coun ty Social Services (county) received a
neglect report involving father and J.M.P., alleging that father was experiencing delusions
and paranoid ideation. As a resu lt, the county filed a petition alleging that J.M.P. was in
need of protection or services. Father admitted the petiti on by default when he left the
courthouse before the case was called. The district court placed J.M.P. with mother under
the protective supervision of the county and ordered that any visitation between father and
J.M.P. be supervised. The district court also ordered father to cooperate with a
psychological assessment and chemical -dependency evaluation and follow all

3
recommendations; to abstain from the use of alcohol or non-prescribed mood-altering
drugs; to submit to random urinalysis as determined by the county ; to cooperate with
reunification therapy with mother and J.M. P.; and to cooperat e with county case-
management services.
Father failed to progress with his case plan and the court-ordered conditions and
recommendations. He also continued to exhibit behavior consistent with mental illness. As
a result, the county filed a petition to commit father as mentally ill, which was granted on
October 12, 2017. In the meantime, the c ounty filed a petition on Oc tober 4, 2017, to
transfer permanent legal and ph ysical custody to mother. At a hearing in February 2018,
father admitted that he was “currently u nder civil commitment fo r mental illness” and
“under an order for the admini stration of neuroleptic medicati ons.” Mother testified that
she had been sober for seven years, that her mental health was stable, and that she had
“learned how to self-sooth with grounding and things to keep [her] hands busy, like cross-
stitching and knitting.” The guardian ad litem (GAL) reported that J.M.P. had “adopted
very well to residing with his mother,” that he wanted to “remain in his current placement,”
and that she had no concerns about moth er’s parenting of the child. The GAL
recommended granting the petition to transfer legal and physical custody of J.M.P. to
mother because it was in J.M.P.’s best interests.
The district court concluded that the co unty “made reasonable efforts to prevent
transfer of [J.M.P.],” but that father “has refused to cooperate with the case plan provided
for him,” and that the “conditions which led to the removal of [J.M.P.] from Father’s home
still exist if [J.M.P.] were to return to the Father’s care.” The district court also concluded

4
that J.M.P. “has flourished while in [mother’s] care,” that she “has demonstrated an ability”
to provide for all of the child’s needs, and that it is “in the best interests of [J.M.P.] to be
placed in the legal and physical custody of Mother.” The district court therefore transferred
legal and physical custody of J.M.P. to mother.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
On appeal from a juvenile-p rotection order transferring legal custody, this court
applies a two-part standard of review. In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D. , 865 N.W.2d 315,
321 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2015). We review factual findings
to determine whether they address the statut ory criteria and are supported by “substantial
evidence,” or whether they are clearly erroneous. In re Welfare of M.D.O. , 462 N.W.2d
370, 375 (Minn. 1990). “A finding is clear ly erroneous only if there is no reasonable
evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake occurred.” D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d at 322 (quotation omitted). But
the ultimate decision that a statutory basis supports a permanency disposition is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. Id.
The district court “may order permanent legal and physical custody to a fit and
willing relative in the best interests of the child.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4 (2016).
Such an order must address (1) how the child’s best interests are served by the order; (2) the
nature and extent of the responsible social services agency’s reasonable efforts to reunify
the child with the parent; (3) th e parent’s efforts and ability to use services to correct the
conditions which led to the out-of-home placement; and (4) that the conditions leading to

5
the out-of-home placement have not been corr ected to permit the child to safely return
home. Minn. Stat. § 260C.517(a) (2016).
Father challenges the district court’s tr ansfer of permanent legal and physical
custody of J.M.P. to mother, ar guing that the transfer was not in the child’s best interest.
But father merely makes asser tions of error. He does not cite supporting facts, makes no
legal arguments, and provides no citations to relevant legal authorities. “An assignment of
error based on mere asserti on and not supporte d by any argument or authorities in
appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is
obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn.
518, 519–20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971); see In re A.R.M., 611 N.W.2d. 43, 50 (Minn.
App. 2000) (citing this aspect of Schoepke in a juvenile-protection appeal). No prejudicial
error is obvious here on mere inspection. Father’s challenge to the district court’s transfer-
of-custody order therefore is not properly before us.
Moreover, even if addressed on the mer its, the district court’s best-interests
determination was not an abuse of discretion. The district court made extensive findings
related to father’s unusual behavior leading up to, and after, the placement of J.M.P. outside
of his home. The district court also found that father failed to comp ly with the case plan
and “repeatedly failed to provide UAs as ordered by the Co urt.” In addition, the district
court made extensive findings related to mother’s ability and willingness to care and protect
J.M.P. The district court found that while in mother’s care, J.M.P. has “flourished,” that
his “behavior greatly improved,” that he “a ppears happy and comfortable” with her, and
“has voiced his desire to live with” her. The district court further recognized that although

6
mother “has a criminal histor y,” she “has been sober for se ven years,” “has been upfront
and honest about her struggles, and has worked hard to ge t herself into a good place
mentally and emotionally.” Finally, the district court determined that the “most relevant
best-interest factor to be considered here is [J.M.P.’s] safety,” and that “[u]nlike Father,
Mother provides a safe environment for [J.M.P .].” The district court’s best-interests
determination is thoughtful, well-analyzed , and amply supported by the record. We
therefore conclude that the district court di d not abuse its discreti on by transferring legal
and physical custody of J.M.P. to mother.
Affirmed.