In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G. H.-G., Parent.

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0495

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G. H.-G., Parent.

Filed September 4, 2018
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-JV-17-695

Adam J. Vetvick, Vetvick Law, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant G.H.-G.)

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Christos Jensen, George R. Joyer, Assistant
County Attorneys, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent county)

Patrick D. McGee, Forest Lake, Minnesota (for respondent father, R.B.)

Kermit Fruechte, St. Paul, Minnesota (for child, R.B., Jr.)

John Jerabek, Tuft, Lach, Jerabe k & O’Connell, PLLC, Maplewood, Minnesota (for
guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HOOTEN, Judge
On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant mother argues that
the district court erred by determining that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite
the family and that termination is in the children’s best interests. We affirm.

2
FACTS
G.H.-G. is the mother of twelve children, seven of whom are involved with this
termination of parental rights action: R.B., Jr. (DOB 3/20/2007), S.G. (DOB 8/12/2008),
V.G. (DOB 7/30/2011), M.G. (DOB 1/4/2013), M.G., Jr. (DOB 5/24/2014), and twins
G.H.G. and E.H.G. (DOB 8/11/2015). Mother and her children resided in public housing
provided by the St. Paul Public Housing Administration (PHA). In August 2014, House
Calls, a social service program within the Health Department of Ramsey County which
assists families and individuals with the cleaning and maintenance of their homes, began
attempting to work with mother. A House Calls social worker observed cockroaches and
determined that the home was infested with mice.
At least one of the children reported that he was fearful of getting out of bed at night
because mice or bugs would bite at his feet. A social worker from PHA observed old food
on the stovetop, cockroaches on the floor and walls, and garbage bags full of clothes that
cluttered the home. Mother failed multiple housing inspections. At school, the children
had behavioral issues and were continuously tired. They would often go to the nurse’s
office to sleep for hours. When the children showed up for class, they were often tired,
hungry, and in dirty uniforms. Most of the children suffered from eczema. The young
twins, GHG and EHG, were born premature ly and have significant health issues. GHG
suffers from breathing difficulties, including bronchitis and chronic lung disease, and has
trouble hearing. EHG suffers from many conditions, including a heart defect, chronic lung
disease, and global development delay. Due to concerns about mother’s mental health, the
poor upkeep of the home, and an eviction proceeding against her, Ramsey County Social

3
Services Department (RCSSD) filed for emergency protective care of the children on
October 7, 2015. The district court granted emergency protective care of the children, and
they were removed from the home.
At her eviction trial, mother offered a letter by a psychologist regarding her mental
health condition. The letter stated that mother’s mental health diagnoses would likely lead
to “disorganization and decreased function in daily living, such as poor housekeeping,
missed appointments, and difficulties holding down a job.” The psychologist h ad
diagnosed her with PTSD and m other admitted she also struggled with depression and
anxiety. The eviction court found that reasonable accommodations could be made and she
could stay at her residence.
After prevailing at her eviction trial, m other’s children were returned to her for a
trial home visit on December 22, 2015. A social worker from RCSSD developed a case
plan for mother that required her to work with mental health professionals and follow their
recommendations, ensure her children attended medical appointments, and keep a clean
home. Mother refused to sign this case plan or any subsequent case plans.
RCSSD worked with the PHA and House Calls to assist mother with the upkeep of
the home. Additionally, the social worker referred m other to multiple mental health
professionals and offered transportation assistance to attend medical appointments.
However, during the trial home visit, m other did not obtain a mental health assessment .
Before the chil dren were removed from the home, House Calls assisted m other in
transporting the children to their medical appointments. However, durin g the trial home
visit, it was m other’s responsibility to get her children to their appointments to assure

4
RCSSD that she could. The twins should have had Well-Child check-ups during the home
visit, but they did not. Additionally, mother had received dressers and cribs from RCSSD
to help with the clutter and to provide a safe sleeping environment for her newborn twins.
However, the social worker observed the medically fragile twins sleeping on the couch
instead of in a safe area and the cribs were never set up. Mother was still failing housing
inspections and eventually the home was condemned by the fire inspector. As a result, the
trial home visit ended on April 28, 2016. Upon arriving at the shelter after removal, the
providers were concerned about the conditions of the children as some of them were not
wearing shoes. The twins also had to be hospitalized for breathing issues.
Over the next year, mother repeatedly refused to comply with her case plans and
failed to address her mental health or maintain her home. In July of 2017, m other was
evicted. With regard to her mental health, mother testified she only takes an antihistamine
as treatment. The guardian ad litem (GAL) testified that she grew increasingly concerned
about mother’s mental health, as it prevented her from completing her case plan which
would mitigate the circumstances that brought this case to court.
RCSSD petitioned to terminate mother’s parental r ights pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(2), (5), and (8) (2016). The district court found that the county
proved by clear and convincing evidence each of the statutory grounds for termi nation.
Additionally, the court determined that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify the
family and that termination is in the best interests of the children. Mother does not
challenge the statutory grounds for termination, but instead argues that the county failed to

5
make reasonable efforts to reunite the family and that it is not in the children’s best interests
to terminate her parental rights.
D E C I S I O N
I. The county made reasonable reunification efforts.
When a child is removed from the home, the county must make reasonable efforts
to reunify the parent and child. Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2016). To determine if the county
has made reasonable efforts, a district court considers whether the services offered to the
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 circumst ances.” Id. (h) (2016).
Additionally, the court must consider “the length of time the county was involved and the
quality of effort given.” In re Welfare of H.K., 455 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn. App. 1990) ,
review denied (Minn. July 6, 1990) . The district court must find “that reasonable efforts
to finalize the permanency plan to reunify the child and the parent were made including
individualized and explicit findings regarding the nature and extent of efforts made by the
social services age ncy to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family.” Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 8(1) (2016). This court reviews the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and, in termination-of-parental-rights matters, will not disturb a finding if it is
supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B. , 805
N.W.2d 895, 901, 904 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
Mother argues that RCSSD failed to meet its burden to provide reasonable efforts
because of the high turnover of social workers who handl ed her case. She states that

6
because there was no coordination or consistency between the various social workers on
her case, she was unable to complete her case plan. However, mother does not cite to any
evidence supporting her argument. Instead she argues that only one social worker was able
to coordinate the care of her family and that once that person left, she was unable to build
rapport with the subsequent social workers, which affected her ability to complete her case
plans. However, that one social worker was working with mother when the trial home visit
was revoked due to mother’s failure to seek mental health assistance and the deteriorating
conditions of the home. This contradicts m other’s argu ment that consistency of social
workers would have assisted her in completing her case plan.
While there were ten social workers that were assigned to m other’s case, there is
nothing in the record to indicate that they did not properly coordinate the services offered.
Mother was provided with multiple case plans addressing her mental health and unstabl e
housing situation. However, m other did not sign these case plans . RCSSD made many
attempts over two years to assist mother in completing her case plan by providing multiple
referrals to mental health professionals and offering transportation to the appointments .
RCSDD also coordinated with House Calls to offer a clea nup service for mother’s home,
but she failed to cooperate with these services. The county provided various supportive
services to mother to address the barriers preventing her from providing a safe and stable
home to her children. Thus, the district court did not err in finding that the county made
reasonable reunification efforts.

7
II. Termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.
In a termination proceeding, “the best interests of the child must be the paramount
consideration.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2016). Even if there is a statutory ground
for termination, the district court still needs to consider “whether termination is in the best
interests of the children.” In re Welfare of Children of R.W. , 678 N.W.2d 49, 57 (Minn.
2004). When analyzing the best interest s of the children, “the cour t must balance three
factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; (2) the parent’s
interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the
child.” J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 905 (quotation omitted). These competing interests may
“include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s
preferences.” Id. (quotation omitted). This court reviews the district court’s termination
decision for an abuse of discretion. Id.
Mother argues that the first factor, the children’s interest in preserving the parent -
child relationship, does not weigh in favor of termination. She states that the children have
a strong interest in this factor because she is their biological mother and the only one able
to facilitate continued relationships between the siblings. The “right of parentage is in the
nature of a trust and is subject to parents’ correlative duty to protect and care for the child.”
In re Welfare of P.T., 657 N.W.2d 577, 583 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Apr.
15, 2003). While there is a presumption that the “natural parent is a fit and suitable person
to be entrusted with the care of [their] child,” the district court f ound numerous facts that
weigh against mother. In re Welfare of A.D. , 535 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 1995). The
district court found that the “children need a safe, stable home and appropriate parent al

8
care from a caregiver who can meet th eir basic and special needs ,” and that mother was
unable to provide these things for her children. During the trial home visit, it was mother’s
responsibility to take her medically fragile twins to their medical appointments. However,
mother did not take them. She also did not go to her own medical appointments and did
not address her mental health diagnoses. Additionally, mother repeatedly failed housing
inspections and did not maintain a safe home free of rodents and debris.
Mother argues that the second factor, the parent’s interest in preserving the parent -
child relationship, does not weigh in favor of termination. She states that she “continues
to work on her own issues and on learning about the children’s issues, so she can be a better
mom to them.” The district court found that the children’s need for permanency outweighs
mother’s “desire for more time to attempt to develop and demonstrate the necessary skills
to parent the children.” The record reflects that mother made no effort to comply with her
case plans. She repeatedly refused to sign the case plans and made it clear to multiple
social workers that she was not going to do any more of the items within the case plan.
Additionally, the GAL testified that mother “has not demonstrated her capacity” to make
the necessary changes to provide a safe, permanent home.
Mother argues that the third factor, competing interests, does not weigh in favor of
termination. She argues that the children need a home where all the siblings can be together
in a safe environment. Here, the district court had to weigh the children’s need for
permanency and stability against the benefit of keeping the siblings together. The need for
permanency ultimately outweighs other factors. “The prolonged uncertainty for children
of not knowing whether they will be removed from home, whether and when they will

9
return home, when they might be moved to another foster home, or whether, and when they
may be placed in a new permanent home is frightening.” In re Welfare of J.R., 655 N.W.2d
1, 5 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted). This case began in 2015 and as of March 2018, the
children have been in foster care for more than 883 days. The GAL testified that the
children need permanency and that it is “very challenging for any child or any person really
to feel that way when having u nknowns for almost 900 days.” This testimony, combined
with the evidence indicating that mother is not able to make the necessary changes to create
a stable environment , supports the district court’s determination that it is not in the
children’s best interests to preserve the parent-child relationship.
Based on the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by terminating mother’s parental rights.
Affirmed.