In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: I. E. K. and K. M. M., Sr., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0259

In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
I. E. K. and K. M. M., Sr., Parents.

Filed July 15, 2019
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-JV-18-253

Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant
mother I.E.K.)

Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, Jeanine M. Putnam, Assistant County Attorney,
Center City, Minnesota (for respondent Chicago County Health & Human Services)

Charlene Larsen, Cedar, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Florey ,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant-mother challenges the district court’s termination-of -parental-rights
(TPR) order, arguing that the record does not support the conclusions that (1) she
abandoned the children, (2) she failed to satisfy her parental duties, (3) she failed to correct
the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement, (4) the children are neglected and in
foster care, and (5) the county made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In late-March 2018, respondent Chisago County Health and Human Services (the
county) received a report that in mid- January 2018, K.M.M. Sr. (father) 1 left his three
children in the care of two families. The county had three prior reports concerning
abandonment of the children. During the prior investigations, the children reported having
no contact with appellant-mother I.E.K. in over three years.
After a children-in-need-of -protection-or-services (CHIPS) petition was filed,
mother contacted the county on May 10, 2018, stating that she learned that the children
were in foster care. Although mother claimed that father had kept the children away from
her and that she wanted them back, she failed to maintain contact with the county. On
May 25, 2018, a default CHIPS adjudication was entered. Mother was ordered to complete
a case plan, including: (1) complete chemical- dependency and mental-health evaluations
and follow the recommendations, (2) find employment and housing, (3) maintain contact
with the county, and (4) establish visitation with the children.
On June 13, 2018, mother had her first contact with the children in over three years.
Mother was distracted during the video-chat, which she repeatedly paused to play a game.
Mother then lost contact with the county . Mother regained contact with the county in
August 2018, and maintained weekly contact throughout the month. She also had one
phone call with the children in August. Mother found housing, but failed to complete any

1 Father has not challenged the termination of his parental rights.
3
of her other case-plan requirements. On Se ptember 11, 2018, the county filed a TPR
petition, asserting that TPR was in the children’s best interests.
On December 27, 2018, the district court held a trial on the TPR petition. Despite
mother’s attorney’s attempts to contact her, mother failed to attend the trial. A social
worker testified that mother gave custody to father so that she could take care of “personal
issues.” The social worker testified that although mother was aware of her case plan since
June 1, 2018, she only recentl y became consistent with visitation and just completed a
mental-health assessment days before trial. The social worker testified that she assisted
mother in completing her case plan by paying for transportation, making referrals,
providing housing lists and contacting homeless shelters, assisting with a job application,
and instructing her on how to obtain health insurance. The social worker testified that
mother’s contact was “very inconsistent.” The social worker testified that the phone calls
with mother were abrupt, mother ignored the social worker’s questions, and mother spoke
over the social worker. The social worker testified that it was in the children’s best interests
to terminate mother’s parental rights because mother had not had contact with the children
in years and the children do not have a relationship with her.
The children’s guardian ad litem testified that it was in the children’s best interests
to terminate mother’s parental rights. She stated that the children are “somewhat
ambivalent to the relationship with [mother]” and have not asked for more visits . The
social worker testified that over the last two months, mother failed to attend one out of
seven of her scheduled visits with the children. The s ocial worker testified that some of
mother’s behavior during visits was troubling. For instance, mother spent a lot of her
4
visitation time on the phone, she once brought an unapproved guest, and during a recent
visit she was mumbling and ignoring the children.
On January 25, 2019, the district court filed its order terminating mother’s parental
rights. The district court found that at the time the children were placed in the custody of
the county, mother had not had any contact with them for approximately three years. The
district court found that the county attempted to assist mother in completing her case plan,
but that mother declined assistance. The district court found that mother completed a
mental-health assessment on December 21, 2018, and that the court received the report
after trial. The district court found that the assessor recommended a chemical-dependency
assessment, individual therapy, family psychotherapy, medication evaluation, and a
physical examination, but that there was no evidence that mother intended to follow the
recommendations. The district court found that the county established statutory grounds
for TPR by clear and convincing evidence, and determined that TPR is in the children’s
best interests. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
We review the district court’s TPR decision 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 doing so, this court determines whether the district court’s findings
address the statutory criteria and whether they “are supported by substantial evidence and
are not clearly erroneous.” In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385
(Minn. 2008). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is manifestly contrary to the
evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence. In re Welfare of Children of T.R.,
5
750 N.W.2d 656, 660-61 (Minn. 2008). This court will affirm a TPR order when “at least
one statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and
termination is in the child[ren]’s best interests.” In re Welfare of Children of R.W., 678
N.W.2d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004). This court gives “considerable deference” to the district
court’s TPR decision, while carefully reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
determine whether it is clear and convincing. S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 385.
The district court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that
(1) mother abandoned the children, (2) mother neglected to comply with her parental duties
and reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s out-of-home
placement, (3) the children are neglected and in foster care, (4) the county made reasonable
efforts to reunify the family, and (5) TPR is in the children’s best interests. Mother
challenges the statutory grounds for TPR, but does not challenge the district court’s best -
interests determination.
Mother abandoned the children
The district court may terminate parental rights if “the parent has abandoned the
child.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(1) (2018). Though a statutory presumption for
abandonment applies under some circumstances, here the county asserted that the evidence
showed that mother abandoned the children. See id., subd. 2(a) (2018). When a statutory
presumption does not apply, abandonment requires proof that the parent (1) actually
deserted the child, and (2) intends to forsake the duties of parenthood. In re Welfare of
L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 1996). Abandonment must be “intentional, rather
than due to misfortune [or] misconduct alone.” Id. (quotation omitted).
6
The district court found that mother intentionally abandoned the children when she
left them in father’s care and did not resume contact after father left the children with family
and friends. The district court also found that mother “did not take any actions that indicate
an intention to accept parental responsibility for the children.” Mother claims that her
actions indicate that she did not intend to forsake her parental duties because she was
having regular contact with the children. But while mother was in regular contact with the
children at the time of trial, she did not do anything else to show that she was willing to
assume parental duties . Mother did not find housing or employment, she did not get a
chemical-health assessment, and it was only days before trial that she got a mental-health
assessment. Further, the record shows that although mother physically showed up for
visitation, she was not always appropriately engaged with the children. She was
consistently late, she brought an unapproved guest, she talked on her phone, and during
one visit she displayed incoherent and erratic behavior. There is clear and convincing
evidence that mother abandoned the children.
Mother failed to satisfy her parental duties
Parental rights may be terminated when the parent has “substantially, continuously,
or repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed . . . by the parent and
child relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2) (2018). Those duties include
providing “food, clothing, shelter, education, and other care and control necessary for the
child’s physical, mental, or emotional health and development.” Id. “The [district] court
must find that at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to
assume [her] responsibilities” and that her neglect of these duties will likely continue in
7
the future. In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 90 (Minn. App. 2012)
(quotation omitted). A parent’s “[f]ailure to satisfy requirements of a court-ordered case
plan provides evidence of a parent’s noncompliance” with parental duties and
responsibilities. In re Welfare of Children of K.S.F. , 823 N.W.2d 656, 666 (Minn. App.
2012).
The district court found that the county proved that mother refused or neglected to
comply with her parental duties because the children have had unstable lives and did not
receive the consistency required for their emo tional and physical wellbeing. The district
court found that mother did not have contact with her children for three years, and that she
did not make substantive progress toward her case plan. The district court also found that
the county provided reasonable efforts, but mother failed or refused to accept assistance.
Mother argues that she did not neglect her parental duties because she was simply
not financially able to provide for them, and because it was father’s actions, not hers, that
formed the basis for the CHIPS petition. Mother claims that when the petition was filed
“[h]er whereabouts were unknown,” but once she was located, she told the social worker
that father prevented her from seeing the children.
First, that mother’s “ whereabouts were unknown” when the petition was filed
establishes that mother neglected her parental duties. Second, although mother states that
father prevented her from seeing the children, the social worker testified that mother
reported that she gave father custody while she took care of “personal issues.”
Additionally, the evidence establishes that the county attempted to assist mother in
satisfying the requirements of her case plan, but mother refused assistance. The social
8
worker testified that mother would state that she arranged her own appointments, but when
the social worker followed up, she learned that mother never arrived for appointments. The
record supports the district court’s determination that the county established with clear and
convincing evidence that mother neglected her parental duties.
Mother failed to correct the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement
Parental rights may be terminated when reasonable efforts have failed to correct the
conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
1(b)(5) (2018). Although the presumptions under this statutory basis do not exist here, the
district court determined that the evidence showed that reasonable efforts failed to correct
the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement. See id.; S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 386.
The district court found that the children had been in out-of -home placement for
approximately eight months because they did not have a parent present and able to provide
for their needs. Mother argues that her actions did not lead to the children’s out-of -home
placement and that once she learned of the out-of -home placement, she contacted the
county to regain custody.
But mother’s actions led to the out-of-home placement because she left the children
before father left them in the care of other families. And although m other contacted the
county and reported that she wanted custody, she did not follow her case plan to show that
she wanted custody. The county attempted t o assist mother in several ways, but m other
often declined assistance. The district court did not err in finding that reasonable efforts
failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement.

9
The children are neglected and in foster care
A district court may terminate parental rights if the children are “neglected and in
foster care.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(8) (2018).
“Neglected and in foster care” means a child:
(1) who has been placed in foster care by court
order; and
(2) whose parents’ circumstances, condition, or conduct
are such that the child cannot be returned to them; and
(3) whose parents, despite the availability of needed
rehabilitative services, have failed to make reasonable efforts
to adjust their circumstances, condition or conduct, or have
willfully failed to meet reasonable expectations with regard to
visiting the child or providing financial support for the child.

Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 24 (2018).
The district court determined that the children have been in foster care since April
2018. The district court found that mother’s circumstances made it so that the children
could not be returned to her because she has not cared for them in over three years, she has
untreated mental-health issues, she has not completed a chemical-dependency evaluation,
she has not found stable housing, and she has not found employment. The district court
determined that mother failed to make reasonable efforts to adjust her circumstances
despite the rehabilitative services offered to her.
Mother argues that the children are in foster care because of father’s actions and
claims that she was expected to reunify under father’s timeline despite the county not
locating her until late May. Mother also asserts that she did not refuse any rehabilitative
services. But again, if mother had not left the children three years earlier to attend to her
“personal issues,” the children would not have been left without a parent when father left
10
them. Additionally, mother received her own case plan and was not expected to reunify
under father’s case plan. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the county
proved with clear and convincing evidence that the children are neglected and in foster
care.
Reasonable efforts to reunify the family
In a TPR proceeding, the district court must determine whether the county made
reasonable efforts to reunite the family. 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. App. 2007) (quotation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2007). The county’s efforts must “be aimed at
alleviating the conditions that gave rise to out-of-home placement, and they must conform
to the problems presented.” J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d at 88. Determining whether the county
provided reasonable efforts requires consideration of the length of the county’s
involvement, and the quality of the effort given. Id. 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 county made reasonable efforts by (1) ensuring the
children were placed together, (2) establishing a case plan, (3) providing telephone contact,
(4) requesting drug testing to ensure safe visits, (5) allowing face-to-face visits,
(6) providing transportation assistance, (7) assisting in referrals for mother to address her
11
mental-health and chemical-dependency issues, (8) assisting mother in locating housing,
(9) making repeated attempts to maintain contact with mother, (10) providing services for
the children, and (11) working on a relative search and engaging in alternative placement
for the children. The district court determined that the county’s efforts were reasonable
and adequate and aimed at finalizing the permanency plan to reunify the family.
Mother argues that the duration and quality o f the county’s efforts fell short. But
the county provided mother with her case plan on June 1, 2018. Mother’s inability or
unwillingness to comply with the case plan by December 2018 is entirely the result of her
own doing. The social worker testified that despite efforts in m aintaining contact with
mother, the weekly phone calls were hasty and unproductive. In a six- month period,
mother was required to visit her children, maintain contact with the county, get health
insurance, find housing, find employment, and get mental-health and chemical-dependency
assessments. She was offered assistance in meeting her case plan, but failed to satisfy the
requirements. The district court did not err in finding that the county established with clear
and convincing evidence that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
Affirmed.