In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.M.K. and L.C.S., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1447

In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
S.M.K. and L.C.S., Parents.

Filed April 6, 2020
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-JV-19-23

Michael K. Pepin, Michael K. Pepin Law Offices, Pine Springs, Minnesota (for appellant-
mother S.M.K.)

Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Sydney Silko, Assistant County Attorney, Pine
City, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Cynthia Bell, Pine City, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge;
and Klaphake, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant-mother S.M.K. appeals from the district court’s order terminating her
parental rights, arguing that the record does not support the district court’s determination

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
that respondent-county made reasonable efforts to reunify moth er with her children. We
affirm.
FACTS
Mother has two children, L.P.S. (born in 2010) and K.K.S. (born in 2012). L.C.S.
is the adjudicated father of both children.
On March 26, 2018, police officers respon ded to a reported disturbance at mother’s
home. Mother and father were both arrested. The children went to stay with a relative.
On April 16, 2018, the coun ty agency filed a petition alleging the children to be in
need of protection or services (CHIPS) under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2016). The
district court ordered the children into the em ergency protective care of the county. The
county placed the children with a relativ e where they remained through October 2018.
Mother did not appear at th e emergency protectiv e care (EPC) heari ng, the admit/deny
hearing, or the disposition hearing in the CHIPS case.
On June 1, 2018, the children were adjudi cated in need of protection or services.
The district court adopted the county’s case plan and ordered mother and father to comply
with the plan. The case plan required mother to: (1) complete a chemical-use assessment
and follow all resulting recommendations; (2) complete a diagnostic assessment and follow
all resulting recommendations; (3) participate in individual and family therapy; (4) remain
abstinent from non-prescribed substances and submit to random testing; (5) participate in
parenting-skills education; (6) obtain and maintain employment; (7) obtain and maintain
safe housing; and (8) remain in contact with the county and the guardian ad litem, and to
sign releases as either deemed necessary. Mother did not sign the written case plan because

3
she did not appear in court for the dispositional hearing. But mother later testified that she
was aware of her obligation to follow the case plan, recalled reviewing it with the case
manager on July 27, 2018, and understood what was expected of her.
On March 7, 2019, the county filed a pe tition to terminate mother’s and father’s
parental rights (TPR). The TPR petition alle ged three statutory grounds: neglect of
parental duties under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2) (2018); palpable unfitness
under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) ( 2018); and failure to correct the conditions
leading to the children’s out-of-home placem ent under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
1(b)(5) (2018).
On July 24, 2019, the district court rece ived father’s voluntary written consent to
termination of his parental rights. Father’s rights were terminated on this basis, and father
does not appeal the termination of his parental rights. A two-day trial was held on July 24
and July 30, 2019, concerning the termination of mother’s pa rental rights. The district
court heard testimony from mother, the children’ s therapist, the children’s foster mother,
the county case manager, and the guardian ad litem.
On August 23, 2019, the district cour t ordered the parental rights of mother
involuntarily terminated. The district court, in a detailed order, re cognized that mother
made some attempts to comp ly with her case plan. Sh e completed two chemical-use
assessments, participated in random testi ng, obtained a diagnostic assessment, attended
individual therapy, and particip ated in parenting education du ring supervised visits with
her children.

4
The district court also found, however, that mother failed to remain abstinent from
mood-altering chemicals; never obtained a job; never found “safe, sustainable, suitable
housing”; and maintained only “sporadic and inconsistent” contact with the county workers
and the guardian ad litem during the pendency of the CHIPS case.
The district court found that the county proved each of the three statutory grounds
for termination of mother’s parental right s alleged in the petition and that it made
reasonable efforts “to rehabilitate the parents, reunify the children with the parents, and
finalize a permanency plan for the children.” The district court found 18 separate and
specific ways in which the coun ty provided these reasonable e fforts. The district court
found that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Mother argues on appeal that the district court erred by finding that the county made
reasonable efforts to reunify her with her child ren. As support for her argument, mother
cites her difficulties communicating with the county and trial testimony from the children’s
therapist that the county was working toward termination instead of reunification.
In order to terminate mother’s parental rights, the district court needed to find clear
and convincing evidence of at least one of the statutory bases alleged in the petition. In re
Welfare of Children of J.R.B. , 805 N.W.2d 895, 906 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied
(Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). The district court found each of the three statutory bases alleged in
the petition was proved by clear and convincing evidence.

5
One of the statutory bases for termination the district court found to have been
proved was that reasonable efforts under the di rection of the court failed to correct the
conditions that initially led to the children’s out-of-home placement. Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5). This statutory basis for termination necessarily includes a
finding of reasonable efforts. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2). Because mother’s
challenge on appeals is to whether the county’s efforts to reunify her with the children were
reasonable, we examine the record on the district court’s conclusion that this statutory basis
for termination was proved.
“We review an order terminating parental rights to determine whether the district
court’s findings (1) address the statutory cr iteria and (2) are supported by substantial
evidence.” In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012). When
reviewing a termination order “[w]e must closely inquire in to the sufficiency of the
evidence to determine whether it was clear and convincing.” Id. (quotations omitted). We
review the district court’s determination that a statutory basis to terminate parental rights
exists for an abuse of discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion oc curs if the district court
improperly applied the law.” Id. We review the factual findings for clear error. Id. “A
finding is clearly erroneous if it is manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not
reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Id. (quotations omitted).
“Reasonable efforts” means “the exercise of due diligence by the responsible social
services agency to us e culturally appropriate and availabl e services to meet the needs of
the child and the child’s family.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(f) (2018). The district court, when
determining whether reasonable efforts were made, “shall consider whether services to the

6
child and family were: (1) relevant to the safety and protec tion of the child; (2) adequate
to meet the needs of the ch ild and family; (3) culturally appropriate; (4) available and
accessible; (5) consistent and timely; and (6 ) realistic under the circumstances.” Minn.
Stat. § 260.012(h)(1)-(6) (2018). “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 given.” In re Welfare of H.K., 455 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn. App. 1990), review
denied (Minn. July 6, 1990). Th e county’s efforts must aim to alleviate the conditions
giving rise to out-of-home placement. J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d at 88.
The district court found that “[t]he services offered [by the county] were relevant to
the safety and protection of the children, adequate to meet the needs of the child and family,
culturally appropriate, available and accessible, consistent and timely, and realistic under
the circumstances.” There is substantial evidence in the reco rd to support this
determination.
Mother argues that the case manager continually tried to contact her by phone or
text “even though the [case manager] knew that Mother had a very difficult time receiving
phone calls or text messages.” The record es tablishes that mother had a phone that could
receive calls or text messages when connected to wi-fi. Mother would connect to her
neighbor’s wi-fi to use her phone. The case manager knew this and used text messaging
to mother’s phone to contac t mother. Although this mode of communication was not
perfect, it is unclear from this record what else the case manager could have done to keep
in contact with mother. The children were placed out-of-home and mother had a case plan
that contemplated their return to mother’s care if she complied with the plan and remedied

7
the conditions that led to th eir placement. Mother was repeatedly absent from court
hearings in the CHIPS case. The responsibility to regularly check for text messages was
on mother—and she had every incentive to conne ct to wi-fi and retrieve her messages if
she wanted to comply with the case plan of which she agrees she was aware.
In addition to attempting to contact mother by phone or text messaging, the case
manager also “attempted seven pop in visits at Mother’s home during May, June, and July”
of 2019. The case manager was also eventually able to ge t mother a government-issued
cellular phone, delivered that phone to moth er, programmed her own phone number into
mother’s new phone, and gave mother instructions for keeping the phone activated.
The record as a whole supports the distri ct court’s determination that the county
provided reasonable efforts to reunify. A nd the record supports that those reasonable
efforts under the court’s direction did not correct the conditions leading to the initial CHIPS
adjudication and out-of-home placement. The ca use of that failure was not the county’s
lack of effort, but was, instea d, mother’s failure to successfully work on the case plan.
Mother does not challenge the district court’s finding that termination of her rights is in the
children’s best interests, and review of the r ecord reveals that the re cord indeed supports
that factual finding. We therefore affirm the termination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 1(b)(5).
Because we affirm the termination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5), we
need not consider the other statutory bases for termination. J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 906.
Affirmed.