In the Matter of the Children of: B.M.T., N.B.T., and C.V.G., Jr., Parents.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1303

In the Matter of the Children of: B.M.T., N.B.T., and C.V.G., Jr., Parents.

Filed February 11, 2019
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Wright County District Court
File No. 86-JV-18-1779

Matthew Ralston, Ralston Legal, LLC, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for appellant B.M.T.)

Thomas N. Kelly, Wright County Attorney, John A. Bowen, Assista nt County Attorney,
Buffalo, Minnesota (for respondent Wright County Department of Health and Human
Services)

Kayla Van Amber, Plymouth, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Hooten , Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judg e; and Cochran,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
Mother challenges the district court’s termination of her parental rights, arguing that
(1) the district court should have granted her request for a co ntinuance and (2) sufficient
evidence did not support the district court’s determination. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant B.M.T. (mother) is the biological mother of nine-year-old J.R.T. and 16-
month-old C.A.G. She appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights (TPR)
with respect to both children.
J.R.T. began out-of-home placement on September 15, 2017, afte r an incident
during which mother shoplifted at a convenience store while under the influence of “wet.”
1
J.R.T. witnessed mother’s arrest . A few days later, the child- protection worker assigned
to the case contacted mother to i nform her that respondent Wrig ht County Health and
Human Services (the county) placed J.R.T. in foster care. Mother appeared confused and
unaware of J.R.T.’s whereabouts.
C.A.G. began out-of-home placement on September 19, 2017, at fi ve weeks old.
Mother tested positive for THC 2 and cocaine while pregnant with him. C.A.G. tested
positive for THC at birth and later tested positive for both THC and cocaine. Shortly after
J.R.T.’s removal, the child-protection worker went to mother’s home to check on C.A.G.
Mother did not recall her conver sation with the child-protection worker regarding J.R.T.,
nor could she recall when C.A.G. had last eaten. Further, the only baby-related item in the
apartment was a portable crib. T he child-protection worker adm inistered a drug test to
mother, which came back positive for THC and cocaine.
Mother has a significant history of substance use and mental-he alth issues. She
experiences paranoia and confusi on, which worsen with drug use. She has been

1 “Wet” is marijuana laced with embalming fluid.
2 THC is the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

3
hospitalized on multiple occasions due to drug-induced psychotic delusions. Mother also
has a history of experiencing domestic violence with J.R.T.’s father, N.B.T. and C.A.G.’s
father, C.V.G.
In September 2017, th e county filed a child -in-need-of-protection-or-services
(CHIPS) petition regarding the children. The district court ad judicated the children as
CHIPS and ordered that mother comply with a case plan.
Mother submitted to drug testing throughout this case, which pr oduced positive
results on at least fifteen occas ions. She also missed a numbe r of tests. Mother had
visitation with the children throughout the case, however, due to her failing drug tests and
frequently showing up late for visitation with the children, visits were often canceled. The
county suspended visitation in November 2017 and again in February 2018 due to mother’s
drug use and the negative effect that canceled visits had on J. R.T. Mother resumed visits
on May 30, 2018.
Mother attended treatment at Sobriety First from November 2017 to February 2018,
during which time she continued to use marijuana and cocaine. Mother began inpatient
treatment at Recovery Plus in late March 2018. The date of mot her’s last drug use varies
slightly depending on the account, but appears to be in mid-Feb ruary or March. She met
her goals and ultimately graduated from the program on May 8, 2 018. Three days later,
she began residential treatment at Journey Home, where she remained during trial.
The county filed a TPR petition on March 23, 2018. After a co urt trial, the district
court terminated mother’s parental rights on July 23, 2018, con cluding that the county
showed that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of mother’s rights under

4
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4)-(5), (8) (2018), because mother is palpably unfit to
parent, reasonable efforts have failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-
of-home placement, and the childr en were neglected and in foste r care. This appeal
follows.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for
a continuance.

Mother argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a
continuance of its permanency decision because she was in compliance with her case plan
at the time she requested a continuance. We are not persuaded.
If a parent maintains contact with the children, complies with the case plan, and if
the children would benefit from reunification, the court may continue the matter for up to
six additional months. Minn. Stat. § 260C.204 (c)(1)(ii) (2018). It is within the trial court’s
discretion to grant a continuance, and we will not reverse with out a showing of a clear
abuse of that discretion. In re Welfare of J.A.S., 488 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Minn. App. 1992)
(affirming trial court’s denial o f continuance request when gua rdian ad litem (GAL)
believed it would be in children’s best interests for hearing to proceed as scheduled).
The district court denied mothe r’s request for a continuance st ating that it would
“merely delay what has been demonstrated to be inevitable.” The district court noted that
mother’s treatment program discharged her during trial for failure to meet curfew. Further,
the district court determined that a continuance is not in the best interests of the children.

5
The record supports the district court’s determination that granting a continuance is
not in the best interests of the children. The GAL, social worker, and J.R.T.’s therapist all
testified similarly that J.R.T. needed permanency promptly so t hat he could move on and
focus on his own mental health. Moreover, the social worker st ated that disrupting the
stability that the foster family provides C.A.G. is not in his best interests. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for a continuance.
II. Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s termination of
mother’s parental rights.

A. Standard of review

This court reviews a district court’s findings of fact in a ter mination proceeding to
determine whether they are suppo rted by substantial evidence, a re not clearly erroneous,
and address the statutory factors. In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.
1 9 9 0 ) . A f a c t u a l f i n d i n g i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s “ i f i t i s e i t h e r manifestly contrary to the
weight of the evidence or not r easonably supported by the evide nce as a whole.” In re
Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656, 660-61 (Minn. 2008). We defer to the district
court’s determinations as to the credibility of witnesses. In re Welfare of Children of B.M.,
845 N.W.2d 558, 563 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).
We review the district court’s ultimate TPR decision for an abuse of discretion. In
re Welfare of Child of R.D.L. , 853 N.W.2d 127, 136 (Minn. 2014). “We will affirm the
district court’s termination of parental rights when a statutor y ground for termination is
supported by clear and convincing evidence, termination is in the best interests of the child,

6
and the county has made reasonable efforts to reunite the famil y.” In re Welfare of
Children of A.R.B., 906 N.W.2d 894, 897 (Minn. App. 2018).
B. Reasonable efforts

Mother argues that substantial evidence did not support the dis trict court’s finding
that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children because her
treatment providers made little to no effort to maintain contact with her. We disagree.
During a TPR proceeding, the district court must make findings that the county
made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, including findings regarding the nature and
extent of the efforts. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 8(1) (201 8). Reasonable efforts are
“services that go beyond mere matters of form so as to include real, genuine assistance.”
In re Welfare of Children of S.W. , 727 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2007). The services offered must be: “(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 accessibl e; (5) consistent and timely;
and (6) realistic under the circumstances.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2018). “Whether the
county has met its duty of reasonable efforts requires consider ation of the length of time
the county was involved and t he 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). What constitutes
“reasonable efforts” depends on the facts of each case. In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d
886, 892 (Minn. 1996).
The district court found that th e county made reasonable effort s to reunify mother
with the children by offering her tangible and relevant resources. The county’s efforts tried

7
to address mother’s issues of substance use, mental health, uns afe relationships, lack of
parenting skills, and her resulting inability to provide safety and stability for the children.
These efforts included setting up a psychological evaluation to address mother’s substance-
abuse and mental-health issues; referrals for treatment and the rapy; moving mother’s
supervised visits with the children to a program closer to her and that provided services to
help with parenting skills; continuously advising mother on appropriate conversations with
the children; providing transportation tokens and gas cards; and discussing budgeting and
finances with mother when she rec eived an eviction notice. In addition, mother attended
programming regarding healthy relationships.
The social worker testified that she did not believe that there were any services
mother should have been provided that the county failed to offe r her. She believed the
services were relevant, culturally appropriate, available to he r, and realistic. The social
worker stated that mother’s biggest challenge is that she did n ot seem to want help. The
record supports the district cour t’s finding that the county ma de reasonable efforts to
reunite mother and the children.
C. Palpably unfit

Mother argues that clear and convincing evidence did not support the district court’s
finding that she is palpably unfit to parent because she provid ed her children with food,
clothing, shelter, and necessities. She contends that she cared for J.R.T. almost exclusively
for six years and never had the opportunity to care for C.A.G. for a prolonged period of
time. Mother asserts that the evidence showed that, at the time the district court terminated
her rights, she was on the road to recovery. We are not persuaded.

8
A district court may terminate a parent’s rights if that parent is palpably unfit to be
a parent due to specific conduct or conditions directly related to parenting which the district
court finds to be of a duration or nature rendering the parent unable to appropriately care
for the child for the foreseeable future. Minn. Stat. § 260C.3 01, subd. 1(b)(4) (2018). In
determining whether a particular statutory basis for a TPR is present, a district court finds
the underlying facts relevant to the statute and then, in light o f i t s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s ,
determines whether the basis for terminating a parent’s rights is present. In re Welfare of
Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 900 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6,
2012). If a parent’s behavior is likely to harm a child’s physical or mental health, a parent
can be found palpably unfit. In re Children of Vasquez, 658 N.W.2d 249, 255 (Minn. App.
2003).
The district court determined that mother was palpably unfit to parent. It noted that
mother repeatedly used drugs while caring for her children, she drove with J.R.T. in the
car while under the influence, she was hospitalized for drug-in duced psychotic delusions
and forgot that she had a son, a nd C.A.G. tested positive for THC and cocaine. See In re
Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656, 663 (Minn. 2008) (alcohol or substance use can render
parent palpably unfit if directly related to parent’s inability to appropriately care for the
child for the foreseeable future) . Further, the district court stated that, while mother
achieved sobriety near the end of the case, she lacks sober support and has not shown the
ability to remain drug-free outside of inpatient treatment. Th e district court found that
mother’s mental-health issues d irectly affect her ability to ca re for her children because
they have resulted in harm to the children, and she has not pro perly addressed them. See

9
id. at 661-62 (parent can be found palpably unfit based on mental illness if it is likely to
harm child). Due to mental-health issues, she is unable to man age routine affairs, suffers
from delusions and hallucinations, and has disorganized thought s and behaviors. The
district court also found that the children could not be protec ted under mother’s care due
to her continued involvement with N.B.T. and C.V.G.
The record supports the district court’s findings under this st atutory factor. The
social worker testified that she is not confident in mother’s a bility to remain drug free in
the community, as she was unable to abstain from using drugs in an unstructured
environment throughout the entire case. Despite the social wor ker’s emphasis on the
importance of having a sober support network, mother had not ye t obtained a sponsor at
the time of trial. Moreover, the social worker testified that mother’s inability to cease
contact with N.B.T. and C.V.G. remains a roadblock to her recovery due to their continued
drug use. Mother acknowledged during trial that both men were not good for her sobriety
or mental health. The GAL testified that mother still does not understand the full scope of
her substance use.
With respect to mother’s mental-health issues, she testified during trial that she still
has paranoid feelings that someone is watching her. Mother’s t reatment counselor at
Recovery Plus testified that she has concerns about someone’s sobriety and stability if they
continue to have paranoid delusi ons. Mother also stated that s he inconsistently took
prescribed medication for her mental health. She testified tha t she did not agree with her
diagnostic assessment, evincing her lack of understanding of her mental-health issues. The

10
social worker testified that, instead of addressing her underly ing mental-health concerns,
mother had only focused on trying to cope with the stress of the case in therapy.
According to the GAL, at the time of trial, mother’s continued inappropriate
conversations with J.R.T. prevented her from having unsupervised visits with the children.
The GAL testified that, because mother has only just begun to a ddress her own mental-
health needs, she is not confident that mother can provide J.R.T. with the support he needs
for his own mental-health issues. The social worker also testified that she is worried about
mother’s ability to control hers elf due to inappropriate behavi or in public settings. The
social worker testified to patte rns of mother’s conduct through out the case, including
diminishing the culpability for her behavior, lying about things with which she needs help,
and continuing to be non-complia nt with her programs. The GAL further testified that
mother has put her interests above those of her children throughout the case. A finding of
palpable unfitness is supported when visitation notes indicate that the parent lacks adequate
parenting skills and when it is u nlikely that the parent will b e able to put aside his own
needs and desires in order to pr operly care for the child in th e foreseeable future. In re
Welfare of J.D.L., 522 N.W.2d 364, 368 (Minn. App. 1994). Finally, both the GAL and
the social worker testified that mother is not capable of meeti ng the children’s needs.
Because the record supports the district court’s determination that mother is palpably unfit,
we need not address the other statutory bases for termination. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 1(b)(1)-(9) (2018) (distri ct court may terminate a parent ’s rights if at least one
statutory factor is met).

11
D. Best interests of the children

Mother asserts that the district court improperly determined that termination was in
the best interests of the children. We are not persuaded.
We review a district court’s best-interests determination for an abuse of discretion.
J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 900. In a termination proceeding, the children ’s best interests are
the paramount consideration. Id. at 902. We “must balance 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 o f the child.” In re Welfare
of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1992). The district court “must consider a child’s
best interests and explain its rationale in its findings and conclusions.” In re Tanghe, 672
N.W.2d 623, 626 (Minn. App. 2003). Conflicts between mother’s interests and the
children’s interests are resolv ed in favor of the children. J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 902.
Competing interests may include “a stable environment [and] hea lth considerations.”
R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d at 4.
The district court found that clear and convincing evidence sup ported its best-
interests determination. Mother argues that the district court placed too much emphasis on
the fact that this case has exc eeded the permanency deadlines, which cannot be the sole
basis for granting a TPR. But the district court considered a number of factors in addition
to the children’s need for permanency. The district court emph asized J.R.T.’s needs,
including managing his ADHD, his negative behaviors including w etting and defecating
himself, his anger, and processing the trauma he has endured. He also needs a caregiver
who can provide boundaries, routines, and stability. Further, C.A.G. needs support in his

12
developmental progress and medical needs. The district court stated that the children need
caregivers who are stable, sober, and who will protect them from unsafe people.
Based on trial testimony, many of the county’s concerns regard ing the children have
improved since their placement in foster care. When the county first placed J.R.T. in foster
care, he had many behavioral issues, anger, aggression, and he was behind in school. The
GAL stated that, since being in f oster care, he has made progre ss in school, he has been
better at verbalizing his emotions, and his negative behaviors have improved. The social
worker also testified that J.R.T. has become better at coping w ith his emotions and
expressing his feelings instead of lashing out and becoming aggressive. The social worker
testified that when J.R.T. began taking medication while in fos ter care, it helped his
concentration. Mother did not want him to go on this medicatio n. J.R.T.’s therapist also
testified that during the period of time when visits were suspended, J.R.T.’s behaviors had
improved. Further, since being in foster care, C.A.G. has achi eved developmental
milestones and his eczema has improved.
Moreover, mother continues to ass ociate with N.B.T. and C.V.G., each of whom
have a history of domestic abuse and substance use. At one point, mother had taken J.R.T.
to see N.B.T., and when she tried to leave, N.B.T. put a gun to her head and said she had
to leave J.R.T. there. As a resu lt, J.R.T. resided with N.B.T. for a period of time during
which N.B.T. abused him. Mother knew about J.R.T.’s issues wit h wetting his pants and
stated that it usually happened during times of inconsistency, such as when his father would
come around. The fact that N.B. T. continues to be present in m other’s life indicates that
returning to mother’s care is not in the children’s best interests. Mother also stated that she

13
had an order for protection (O FP) against C.V.G. but still had contact with him. On one
occasion during this case, she gav e law enforcement her sister’ s name when they pulled
her over with C.V.G. in the car to avoid getting in trouble for violating the OFP.
The GAL testified that J.R.T. needs a caregiver who is stable and can create routine
to help with his behaviors and emotions, to maintain contact wi th school, and meet his
medical needs. The social worker testified that J.R.T. needs a support system to help him
through the trauma that he has experienced. The record indicat es that mother may not be
supportive of helping J.R.T. work through his trauma and mental-health needs. In addition,
C.A.G. may have fetal-alcohol syndrome. He needs someone to en sure regular doctor’s
visits, take care of his eczema, and to help him reach developmental milestones. The social
worker testified that both childre n n e e d a c a r e g i v e r w h o c a n g ive them structure and
stability as well as a caregiver w ho is mentally healthy and so ber. She did not believe
mother could be that caregiver.
Mother argues that the district court failed to consider J.R.T.’s preference to return
to mother’s care. She points to the testimony of the GAL and J .R.T.’s therapist that he
wished to return to her care. However, the district court did consider J.R.T.’s wishes and
found that he has an interest in maintaining his relationship w ith mother. It noted that
J.R.T. is attached to mother, and that he “loves her, misses her, and wants to be with her.”
While mother loves her children and wants to care for them, the children’s needs outweigh
mother’s interests in maintaining her relationship with the children. Both the GAL and the
social worker believe that the foster parents can provide the c hildren with the care they
need and ultimately testified that termination is in the best interests of the children, which

14
the district court credited. Bas ed on this record, the distric t court did not abuse its
discretion.
Affirmed.