, A18-1830

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1826, A18-1830

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. A. J. and V. P. H., Parents (A18-1826),

and

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. A. J., Mother, H. M. R., Father, and
P. A. J., Presumed Father (A18-1830).

Filed April 8, 2019
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File Nos. 73-JV-18-1527, 73-JV-18-1528

Kimberly A. Stommes, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for appellant mother)

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Gayle A. Borchert, Assistant County
Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent county)

V.P.H., Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Jason W. Migala, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent H.M.R.)

Tylor Cummings, Waite Park, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HOOTEN, Judge
In a challenge to the district court’s order s terminating parental rights to her four
children, mother argues that the district court abused its discretion and failed to make
findings supported by the record. Because the record supports the district court’s findings
that reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home
placement and termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.
FACTS
These consolidated appeal s arise from the district court’s orders terminating
mother’s parental rights to her four children. Mother’s four children were the subjects of
two child-protection matters as the oldest child has a different father than the younger three
children. Until the children were removed from mother’s home in 2017, the four children
lived with mother.
The family has been the subject of a number of child -protection cases in counties
throughout the state. Stearns County Human Services (SCHS) started providing services
to the family because they received a report that the father of the three youngest children
assaulted mother in April 2017.
Two months later, police went to mother’s home to investigate a separate allegation
against her arising out of her care of a vulnerable adult. But be cause the home had no
running water or electricity, the police removed the children. An emergency protective
hearing was held the following week , and the district court transfe rred custody of the
children to SCHS with the oldest child being placed with her father. Shortly thereafter, the

3
three youngest children were returned to mother on a trial home visit, while the oldest child
remained in the care of her father.
Mother failed to attend her pretrial hearing in early June. The district court ordered
mother to submit to random drug testing , complete a diagnost ic assessment and follow
recommendations, and maintain safe, stable, and chemical-free housing. But by the end of
May, mother was evicted from her home. During the months of June and July, mother and
the three children lived in hotels or with mother’s fr iends. When a social worker visited
mother and the children at one of the hotels, she found the room “trashed” with empty
alcohol bottles in the garbage. Mother refused to submi t to drug testing on June 19 and
tested positive for amphetamine on June 23, then refused to submit to testing again on July
5 and 19.
In July 2017, due to mother’s housing instability and safety concerns regarding her
use of alcohol while caring for the children, the district court terminat ed mother’s trial
home visit with the three youngest children, but awarded her supervised visits. The next
day, mother tested positive for amphetamine a nd methamphetamine. In August, s he
repeatedly refused to take drug tests as requested . By the time of trial in 2018, she had
refused 51 out of 61 test requests. During this time, mother also started dating a man who
was a predatory offender . Social workers and staff at the visitation center observed this
man with the children during the children’s trial home visits with mother and later duri ng
mother’s supervised visits with the children. Although mother knew of his predatory -
offender status and had an order for protection against him earlier that year, she believed
that he did not pose a safety risk to her children.

4
Mother’s supervised vi sits with her children were troublesome. One visitation
supervisor observed that mother had difficulties managing the three youngest children on
her own. The supervisor also observed that she often became “frustrated with the children,
lacked follow through, and raise[d] her voice.” Two visitation supervisors were required
to monitor mother’s visits, one to record observations during the visit and the other to
ensure that the children did not get hurt. Visitation-center staff reported that mother was
unable “to manage the three children” and on one occasion, staff called the children’s foster
parent to pick up one of the children from the visit because mother ignored him when he
“screamed for over 20 minutes.” Mother was late for her visit on August 16 and brought
her predatory-offender boyfriend to the visit with the children. She missed her visit the
next day, and showed up late to her visit the following week. Staff agreed to change the
time of her visits because she indicated she had difficulties g etting transportation at the
scheduled times. When mother failed to show up to the next visit at her requested time,
the center announced that it would not supervise any of mother’s visits in the future. Based
on this evidence, in September 2017, the district court suspended all of mother’s visitation
with the children until she achieved 14 consecutive days of compliance with her case plan.
The next month , mother completed a chemical-dependency evaluation, mental -
health assessment, and p arenting-capacity assessment. The chemical -dependency
evaluator recommended that she complete a chemical -dependency program and a mental-
health assessment, and attend individual therapy. Mother attended only one chemical-
dependency treatment session and was subsequently discharged for failing to attend.

5
Mother was diagnosed with ma jor depressive disorder and the mental -health
assessment recommended she attend therapy. Even though she was required to attend
weekly therapy, she only saw a county-approved therapist once in November 2017 and the
record is unclear whether she saw the therapist a second time in 2018.
The parenting-capacity assessor, a licensed psychologist, conducted an interview
and observed mother during a visit with her children. As it had been five months since she
saw the children, the psychologist noted that the bond between mother and child was weak.
The psychologist found that mother “is incapable of sustaining any commitment to a
rehabilitation plan” and her “prognosis for sobriety at this time is very poor.” Finally, the
psychologist stated, “As for her parenting readiness, she will remain ill-prepared to accept
full-time parenting responsibilities for her children into the foreseeable future, if ever.”
Mother requested on several occasions that she resume visitation with the children.
The county social worker explained the district court’s order that she must comply with the
case plan for two weeks in order to reinstate visits and that, because mother co nsistently
refused to take court -ordered drug tests or tested positive for methamphetamine, she had
not complied with the case plan for the requisite time period.
In February 2018, the county filed petitions to terminate mother’s parental rights to
all four children. The county based its petition s on the following statutory grounds: (1)
that mother neglected to comply with her parental duties under Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2) (2018); (2) that mother is palpably unfit to be a parent under
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2018); and (3) that reasonable efforts failed to

6
correct the conditions leading to the children’s placement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 1(b)(5) (2018). Mother denied the petitions.
After termination proceedin gs began, and a year after the children were removed
from the home, mother was charged with three fifth-degree controlled substance offenses
that occurred over a period of five months. She was ordered to participate in drug court in
September 2018, a month before the termination -of-parental-rights trial. The drug court
ordered mother to participate in random drug testing and to complete treatment . Of the
seven drug tests she was required to take in October 2018 as required by the drug court ,
she missed two tests and tested positive for methamphetamine twice. And at the time of
trial, she had not started treatment.
Mother’s termination -of-parental-rights trial took place later that month . At the
time of trial, the oldest child was ten years old, and the three youngest children were four,
three, and two years old. The district court heard testimony from mother, both adjudicated
fathers, the parenting -capacity psychologist, mother’s current SCHS worker, and the
children’s guardian ad litem. Following trial, t he district court terminated mother’s
parental rights to all four children, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to
support all three statutory grounds alleged in the petition s and that termination was in the
children’s best interests. Mother appeals.
D E C I S I O N
We review the termination of parental rights “to determine whether the district
court’s findings address the statutory criteria and whether the district court’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” In re Welfare of Children

7
of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). A factual finding 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). “Termination of parental rights will be affirmed as long
as at least one statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing
evidence 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). And, in most cases, the county must show that it made
reasonable efforts to reunite the parent with the children. In re Welfare of A.M.C. , 920
N.W.2d 648, 655 (Minn. App. 2018). Appellate courts review the district court’s ultimate
decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of Children
of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 900 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
In terminating mother’s parental rights, the district court determined that there was
clear and convincing evidence that (1) reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions
that led to the children’s out-of-home placement, (2) mother is a palpably unfit parent, and
(3) mother fa iled to comply with her parental duties, and that termination was in the
children’s best interests. Mother challenges all three statutory grounds for termination and
the district court’s best -interests finding , but we address only the statutory ground that
reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s placement under
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) and the district court’s best-interests determination.
Reasonable efforts failed
Mother challenges the district court’s determination that reasonable efforts failed to
correct the conditions that led to the children’s out -of-home placement. Under this

8
statutory ground for termination, the failure of reasonable efforts is shown if: (1) a child
under the age of eight has res ided out of the home for six months, or an older child has
resided out of the home for one year, unless the parent has maintained regular contact with
the child and is complying with the out-of-home placement plan; (2) the court has approved
the out-of-home placement plan; (3) the conditions have not been corrected; and (4) the
county has made reasonable efforts toward reunification. M inn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
1(b)(5).
Mother makes two general challenges to the district court’s finding that reasonable
efforts failed to correct the conditions: (1) mother was not given a reasonable amount of
time to further complete her case plan, and (2) the district court failed to make the required
findings to support its determination. First, mother argues that she “was presently able to
assume the responsibilities of caring for the children, especially if allowed additional time.”
But evidence that problems leading to out -of-home placement have not been resolved by
the time of trial is sufficient to show that efforts have failed to correct the conditions leading
to out of home placement. In re Welfare of J.L.L. , 396 N.W.2d 647, 651 (Minn. App.
1986). If a parent eliminates the factual bases leading to the children’s removal but a new
factual basis has arisen since removal, the new factual basis must also be removed before
the condition is considered corrected. See In re Welfare of D.L.D. , 865 N.W.2d 315, 324
(Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2015). In In re the Welfare of A.H., this
court determined that the parent was given sufficient time to correct the conditions leading
to out-of-home placement when she received services for several years and her physicians

9
indicated that there was little hope her condition that precluded her from parenting woul d
improve. 402 N.W.2d 598, 604 (Minn. App. 1987).
Here, the district court found that:
SCHS has made reasonable efforts to reunify [mother]
with the children, including housing assistance, scheduling of
assessments and therapy appointments, arranging supervised
visitation, providing transportation to UA’s and scheduled
appointments and encouraging the use of [a] shelter to address
the trauma of her domestic abuse and provide assistance with
housing, therapy, shelter care and parenting skills. Reasonable
efforts have failed due to [mother’s] continued chemical use,
criminal behavior, frequent incarceration and failure to
cooperate and follow through with the requirements of her
disposition and case plan.

. . . .

There is clear and convincing evidence that [mother]
has failed to correct that the conditions that led to the out of
home placement by failing to maintain safe and adequate
housing for the children and by failing to successfully engage
in CD treatment and individual counseling to address
significant chemical use and mental health concerns.

The district court did not clearly err in making this finding as there is compelling
evidence that mother had not corrected the conditions leading to out-of-home placement or
the conditions that arose since the children were removed. The children had been out of
mother’s home for more than 16 months, which is significantly longer than the statutory
periods of six months for younger children or one year for older children. And not once
during the 11-month period leading up to trial did mother comply with her case plan for
two consecutive weeks. For that reason, mother did not see her children for more than five
months until she participated in a court -ordered parenting assessment . T he county gave

10
her a number of referrals to agencies providing housi ng and domestic-violence assistance
in order to help mother find stable housing and address her issues with domestic violence,
but mother failed to follow through with these referrals.
Importantly, mother failed to address her chemical -dependency and mental -health
issues. She was discharged from treatment for failing to attend more than one session and
only attended county-approved therapy twice. The guardian ad litem testified at trial that,
for the foreseeable future, mother is unlikely to parent the children in a chemical-free
environment. After the county petitioned to terminate her rights, and more than a year after
the children were removed, mother was charged with three separate drug offenses. She
was ordered to participate in drug court a month before the termination -of-parental-rights
trial, but continued to miss and test positive on drug tests ordered by the drug court. By
the time of trial, she had been sober for a short time, but had not shown she could provide
stability or safety for her children. As the county points out, mother was in and out of jail
during the months leading up to her termination -of-parental rights hearing for drug and
other charges. Accordingly, there is clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to
correct these conditions.
Second, mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining
that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify mother with her children. During a
termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, the district court must determine whether a
county made reasonable efforts to reunite the parent with her child. T.R., 750 N.W.2d at
664. 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.

11
App. 2007) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2007). “Whether the
county has met its duty of reasonable efforts requires consideration of the length of time
the county was involved and the quality of effort.” In re Welfare of H.K., 455 N.W.2d 529,
532 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1990). In order to determine if efforts
were reasonable, the district court must determine whether the services offered 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) (2018).
The district court found that the cou nty provided reasonable efforts to mother by
providing her with housing assistance and recommendations to work with a domestic abuse
shelter to address her trauma. The county also provided transportation for mother to attend
visitation and other appointments, but mother often turned down the assistance. The county
helped mother schedule her chemical-dependency and mental -health assessment s, but
mother failed to follow throu gh with treatment and therapy. The district court’s findings
are not clearly erroneous as the evidence supports its findings. Therefore, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion by ruling that the county made reasonable efforts
to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement.
Mother briefly argues that the district court failed to make specific findings on the
reasonableness of the county’s efforts. But a district court need not address each element
when the record supports the conclusion that reasonable efforts have failed. See In re
Welfare of Childr en of B.J.B. , 747 N.W.2d 605, 611 (Minn. App. 2008). The district
court’s findings are sufficient to show that the county provided reasonable efforts to mother

12
by providing chemical -dependency and mental -health assessments, coordinating and
offering to provide rides to mother’s therapy sessions and treatment, and providing mother
with housing and domestic -violence agencies for assistance in finding a safe and stable
home and addressing her domestic-violence trauma. Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the county provided reasonable efforts to reunify mother
with her children.
To terminate parental rights, the petitioner must provide clear and convincing
evidence that one of the statutory grounds justifyin g termination under Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 1(b), is satisfied. See In re Children of T.A.A. , 702 N.W.2d 703, 708
n.3 (Minn. 2005) (“Only one ground must be proved for termination to be ordered.”). Here,
the district court also found mother failed to satisfy her parental duties and that she is a
palpably unfit parent. It appears to us that the record supports each of these grounds as
well, but because the record amply supports the district court’s reasonable -efforts-failed
finding, we need not discuss the other statutory bases for termination found by the district
court. See In re Welfare of A.D., 535 N.W.2d 643, 650 (Minn. 1995).
Best interests
Mother challenges the district court’s determination that termination of her parental
rights is in the children’s best interests. We will affirm a termination decision if “at least
one statutory ground alleged in the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence
and termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” T.R., 750 N.W.2d at 661.
The children’s best interests are the paramount consideration in a termination proceeding.
Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.001, subd. 2(a), .301, subd. 7 (2018). A best -interests analysis

13
requires consideration of the child and parent’s interests in pr eserving the parent -child
relationship and of any competing interests of the child. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 39.05, subd.
3(b)(3); see also J.R.B. , 805 N.W.2d at 905 (“Competing interests [of the child] include
such things as a stable environment, health co nsiderations[,] and the child’s preferences.”
(quotation omitted)).
Here, the district court found:
The children’s best interests are clearly served by the
termination of [mother’s] parental rights. There has been no
discernible improvement in the conditions that led to the out of
home placement in May, 2017. The children have been in out
of home placement for more than sixteen months and are
entitled to permanence and stability. The current placement,
unlike the chaos and deprivation experienced prior t o their
removal from the home, meets the physical, mental and
emotional needs of the children.

Record evidence supports the district court’s best -interests determination. The
district court weighed the children’s needs in having a stable and permanent h ome against
their interest in preserving the relationship with their mother. Because the home with their
mother could not provide the stability and consistency that small children need, and the
children had stability in their foster placement or for the o ldest child with her biological
father, the district court concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests. The
district court noted that the youngest three children “have adjusted and are doing well in
their current placement” and that their “physical, mental and emotional needs are being
met.” It noted that the oldest child was “thriving in the care and custody of her father” and
that she “is happy, well-adjusted and doing well in school.”

14
Mother makes a number of arguments in challenging the district court’s best -
interests finding. She first argues that the district court should not have relied on the
testimony of the parenting-assessment psychologist or the guardian ad litem. But we afford
the district court considerable deference in credibility determinations as it is in the best
position to assess credibility. In re the Welfare of L.A.F. , 554 N.W.2d 39 3, 396 (Minn.
1996). For that reason, we will not disturb the district court’s reliance on the testimony of
the psychologist and guardian ad litem.
Mother also argues that her chemical -dependency issues do not interfere with her
ability to provide basic care and adequate nutrition for the children. We have previously
held that a child’s best interests were supported by termination of parental rights because,
although the parent wanted to provide a home for the child, the parent had a history of
chemical abuse, lacked parenting skills, and made relat ively few steps to address the
problems. In re J.L.L., 396 N.W.2d at 651–52 (Minn. App. 1986). Because the parent in
J.L.L. failed to adequately address the underlying issues, the district court could not
determine when the parent would be able to assume parental responsibilities. Id.
Here, mother failed to take steps during the 16 months her children were in out-of-
home placement to address her chemical-dependency and mental-health issues. Although
she argues that she never abused drugs when caring for the children, the record shows
otherwise. Mother was discharged from treatment for failing to attend more than one
session. Although services were encouraged and provided to her to address her housing
issues, she failed to follow through. By the time of trial, she had been sober for about two
weeks, but failed to show she could provide stability for her children. Despite her desire

15
to care for her children, the district court did not err in determining that the children’s need
for stability, permanency, and an environment that can provide what they need physically,
emotionally, and mentally outweighed mother’s interests in parenting the children.
Mother last argues that her temporary issues with chemical abuse do not overcome
her rights as a parent. But her contention that she only struggled with parenting starting in
2017 when she became of victim of domestic violence is unsupported by the record.
Mother has been the subject of five family inv estigations and seven family assess ments
over the years. Prior to this case opening, there were reports that the children subject to
this appeal were found wandering outside alone on several occasions and that the children
were left in the oldest child’s care when she was only nine years old. There is also evidence
that mother had chemical -dependency issues before 2017. Mother’s argument that she
only struggled with parenting starting in 2017, when the father of her youngest children
physically assaulted her, is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of mother’s parental rights was in
the children’s best interests.
Because record evide nce supports the district court’ s f indings, and because the
district court properly applied the law to those findings, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it terminated mother’s parental rights to all four children.
Affirmed.