In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. T. N., Father.

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1056

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
P. T. N., Father.

Filed February 18, 2020
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-JV-18-588

Patrick D. McGee, Forest Lake, Minnesota (for appellant father P.T.N.)

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Jenese Larmouth, Assistant Coun ty Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Ramsey County Social Services Department)

Emily A. Unger, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Debra Kovats, Children’s Law Center of Minn esota, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent
child M.H.)

Robert J. Lawton, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent mother T.R.)

Lauren Durand, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent children B.B.M. and K.T.K.)

Gao Thao, St. Paul, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant father challenges the district court’s termination of his parental rights to
five of his children. Because the record supp orts the district court’s determination that
father inflicted egregious harm on one of his children by sexually abusing her, we affirm.
FACTS
P.T.N. (father) and T.R. (mother) are ma rried and have five children together,
B.B.M., age 18,1 M.H., age 14, K.T.K., ag e 13, A.N., age 9 and Y.D ., age 4. In January
2018, after suffering from a panic attack at scho ol, M.H. disclosed to a social worker that
father had sexually abused her and that flas hbacks of the abuse made her want to kill
herself. She was taken to the hospital and placed on a 72-hour hold.
M.H. was later taken to the Midwest Ch ildren’s Resource Center (MCRC) where
she was interviewed and underwent a physical examination. M.H. reported that father had
sexually abused her on multiple occasions be ginning when she was fi ve years old, and
ending when she was eight years old. M.H. also reported that father had inflicted physical
abuse on her.
M.H. has been out of the home since early 2018. She has been either hospitalized,
in foster care receiving outpatie nt treatment, or in residentia l treatment. The other four

1 B.B.M. has turned 18 since father’s rights we re terminated. However, the district court
is permitted to retain jurisd iction over B.B.M. until her nine teenth birthday because the
petition was filed before she turned eighteen. See In re Welfare of Child of L.M.L. , 730
N.W.2d 316, 322 (Minn. App. 2007).

3
children have remained in the home. Father has been out of the home since January 2018
and has been living in his car. Father has denied the abuse.
In March 2018, respondent Ramsey Count y Social Services filed an expedited
petition to terminate father’s parental rights to the five children. The district court held a
trial in April and May 2019. The district court granted the county’s termination petition to
all five children under Minn. Stat. § 260C .301, subd. 1(b)(6) (2 018), finding clear and
convincing evidence that father had caused egregious harm to M.H., such that a reasonable
person would believe it contrary to the best interest of any of the children to be in father’s
care. The district court also found that, only with respect to M.H., father was palpably unfit
to parent and had neglected his parental duties under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2)
and (4) (2018). Father appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Father challenges the district court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing that
the district court’s findings on the factors under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (4),
and (6) were clearly erroneous.
The district court may terminate the rights of a parent if any one of a number of
statutory factors are met under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1( b)(1)-(9) (2018). We
review the district court’s ultimate decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of
discretion. In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127, 136-37 (Minn. 2014). We
review the district court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by
substantial evidence, are not clearly errone ous, and address the statutory factors. In re
Welfare of M.D.O. , 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn. 19 90). A factual finding is clearly

4
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). We defer to the district court’s credibility
assessments. In re Welfare of Children of B.M., 845 N.W.2d 558, 563 (Minn. App. 2014).
“We will affirm the district court’s termination of parental rights when a statutory ground
for termination is supported by clear and convi ncing evidence, termination is in the best
interests of the child, and th e county has made reasonable e fforts to reunite the family.” 2
In re Welfare of Children of A.R.B., 906 N.W.2d 894, 897 (Minn. App. 2018).
Under section 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6), a district court may terminate parental rights
if it finds:
[T]that a child has experienced egregious harm in the parent’s
care which is of a nature, duration, or chronicity that indicates
a lack of regard for the child’s well-being, such that a
reasonable person would believe it contrary to the best interest
of the child or of any child to be in the parent’s care.

Egregious harm includes acts that would constitute crim inal sexual conduct under
Minnesota’s criminal statutes. Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 14(10) (2018).
The district court found that M.H. suffe red egregious harm under father’s care.
Specifically, the district court found that father penetrated M.H.’s vagina with his penis on
at least one occasion and that father touched M.H.’s vagina with his hand on at least one
occasion. The district court found that M.H. was under the age of 13 and father was more

2 The county was not required to make reasona ble efforts to reunite the family because it
made a prima facie showing of egregious harm under Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(1) (2018).
Moreover, father does not spec ifically challenge the distri ct court’s best-interests
determination. This opinion therefore only addresses the statutory factors.

5
than 36 months older than her, constituting criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.343, subd. 1(a) (Supp. 2019), which provides that a person is guilty of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct if the person engages in sexual contact with a person under 13
years of age and the actor is more than 36 months older than the victim. The district court
also found that father inflicted physical harm on M.H. by hitting her with a belt.
The record supports the district court’s fi nding that father se xually and physically
abused M.H. M.H. testified about the abuse. She stated that fath er called her into his
bedroom and told her to take o ff her clothes and that she “got on top of the bed, and then
he pulled [her].” Then, “he was on top of [her]” and he “put [his peni s] in [her] vagina.”
She testified that this happened “a couple of times.” She testified that, on another occasion,
he was in the living room and he called her over and “put his hands on [her] vagina.” M.H.
testified that father also inflicted physical abuse. She stated that father hit her with a belt,
on multiple occasions, leaving “bruises and marks.” The district court also heard testimony
from several mental-health practitioners who trea ted M.H. These witnesses testified that
M.H. disclosed the sexual abuse and that the sexual abuse has negatively impacted M.H.’s
mental health.
Father’s argument hinges on his assertion th at the district court clearly erred when
it found that father sexually abused M.H. Father contends that M.H. is not credible because
“[s]he could not provide a co nsistent story about how this all happened,” while “[h]is
testimony was credible and consis tent.” But the district c ourt found M.H.’s version of
events to be more credible than father’s testimony. And we give considerable deference to
the district court’s credibility determinations. B.M., 845 N.W.2d at 563.

6
The record clearly supports the district court’s finding that father inflicted sexual
abuse upon M.H. This finding supports the term ination of father’s parental rights to all
five children. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6) (stating that termination is
appropriate if a parent has inflicted egregi ous harm upon a child, “such that a reasonable
person would believe it contrary to the best interest of the child or of any child to be in the
parent’s care”) (emphasis added)). Egregiou s harm “pertains to the parent’s grossly
inadequate ability to provide minimally adequate parental care to any child.” In re Welfare
of A.L.F. , 579 N.W.2d 152, 154-56 (Min n. App. 1998) (emphasi s added) (finding of
egregious harm inflicted by father on child ’s half-sister was su fficient to support
termination of father’s rights as to child).
Because we conclude that the record supports the district court’s finding that M.H.
suffered egregious harm, we need not analyze the other statutory factors because a single
statutory basis for termination is sufficient to affirm a district court’s termination decision.
In re Welfare of Children of R.W., 678 N.W.2d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004).
Affirmed.