In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. D. C., Child.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1395

In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. D. C., Child.

Filed May 10, 2021
Reversed and remanded
Larkin, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-JV-20-791

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appel late Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant J.D.C.)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Jeffrey A. Wald, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent State of Minnesota)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s disposition order placing him at Minnesota
Correctional Facility —Red Wing (MCF -Red Wing). Because the district court did not

2
provide sufficient findings of fact to support its disposition, as required by statute and rule,
we reverse and remand.
FACTS
On August 4, 2020, respondent State of Minnesota filed a juvenile -delinquency
petition charging appellant J.D.C., born August 18, 2005, with first -degree aggravated
robbery. The petition alleged that J.D.C., along with two other individuals, stopped a
woman as she drove her vehicle and physically assaulted her while they attempted to take
her vehicle. Three days after the petition was filed, J.D.C. pleaded guilty to first -degree
aggravated robbery and three additional offenses from other case files. The re was no
agreement regarding disposition. After accepting J.D.C.’s guilty pleas, the district court
ordered that a psychological assessment and probation investigation report be completed.
When the district court held a disposition hearing on September 9, 2020, the parties
agreed to continue the hearing so J.D.C.’s probation officer could investigate programming
options in light of the recently filed psychological assessment. J.D.C.’s supervising
probation officer was unable to appear at the subsequent disposition hearing on
September 16, but a different probation officer provided recommendations on his behalf.
That officer recommended that J.D.C. be placed at MCF-Red Wing for 9 to 12 months ,
indicating that J.D.C.’s supervising probation officer had i nvestigated “a variety of
placements” and that J.D.C. was accepted only at MCF -Red Wing and at West Central
Regional Juvenile Center (West Central). The probation officer noted that J.D.C. had just
completed the West Central program in May 2020, and that West Central did not have an
opening until mid-November 2020. The probation officer also noted that MCF-Red Wing

3
could provide trauma-based services, chemical -dependency services, and individual and
group therapy. The district court again continued the h earing so that it could hear from
J.D.C.’s supervising probation officer.
At the next disposition hearing on September 22, J.D.C.’s supervising probation
officer reiterated the recommendation that J.D.C. be placed at MCF-Red Wing for 9 to 12
months. He explained that five other programs had declined to accept J.D.C. because of
his “behavioral concerns, severe level offenses, his sophistication level or what they
thought that to be,” and because of the “current population” in those programs. Moreover,
J.D.C.’s supervising probation officer believed that the other programs would not meet
J.D.C.’s current needs as well as MCF-Red Wing would. The district court continued the
hearing yet again so that a transcript of the plea hearing could be obtained to clarify the
terms of the plea agreement.
The district court held the final disposition hearing on September 30. After
reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, the parties confirmed that there was no
agreement regarding disposition. The district court adjudicated J.D.C. delinquent for first-
degree aggravated robbery and ordered that J.D.C. be placed at MCF -Red Wing to
complete its 9- to 12-month program. On October 5, 2020, the district court memorialized
its disposition in a written order.
J.D.C. appeals, challenging his placement at MCF -Red Wing on procedural and
substantive grounds.

4
DECISION
A district court has broad discretion when determining the appropriate disposition
in a juvenile-delinquency case. In re Welfare of R.V. , 702 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Minn. App.
2005). This court will affirm a disposition unless there is an abuse of discretion. Id.
If the district court finds that a child is delinquent, it must enter an order making a
disposition that it deems necessary to rehabilitate the child. Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd.
1(a) (2020). The disposition order must “contain written findings of fact to support the
disposition ordered.” Id., subd. 1(b) (2020). It must also explain, in writing, “why the best
interests of the child are served b y the disposition ordered” and “what alternative
dispositions were considered by the court and why such dispositions were not appropriate
in the instant case.” Id.
Additionally, the rules of juvenile delinquency procedure provide that the
disposition order must contain written findings of fact to support the disposition and must
include, in writing,
(1) why public safety and the best interests of the child
are served by the disposition ordered;
(2) what alternative dispositions were recommended
to the court and why such recommendations were not ordered;
and
(3) if the disposition changes th e place of custody of
the child;
(a) the reasons why public safety and the best
interest of the child are not served by preserving the child’s
present custody; and
(b) suitability of the placement, taking into account
the program of the placement facility and assessment of the
child’s actual needs.

5
Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A). The district court must consider whether a
particular disposition “will serve established principles of dispositions,” but it is not
required to make specific findings regarding those principles. Id., subd. (2)(B).
“If the requisite particularized findings are made on the record and appear in a
transcript, it is appropriate for the district court to incorporate those findings by reference
into its order.” In re Welfare of D.T.P., 685 N.W.2d 709, 713 (Minn. App. 2004). But the
transcript must contain the required findings. Id.
“Written findings are essential to meaningful appellate review. Findings are also
required to show that the district court considered vital standards and to enable the parties
to understand the court’s decision.” In re Welfare of N.T.K., 619 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Minn.
App. 2000) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the district court’s failure to make adequate
juvenile-disposition findings is reversible error. Id. at 211-12.
The Findings
J.D.C. contends that the district court’s findings are insufficient to support his
placement at MCF -Red Wing. The sta te concedes that the district court’s findings are
insufficient.
The district court’s written disposition order placed J.D.C. at MCF-Red Wing. But
the order did not include the specific findings required under Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd.
1(b), or Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, subd. 2(A). As to the reasons for the placement,
the order simply stated:
The transcript of these proceedings sets forth facts
which support this disposition order and is hereby incorporated
as to: (a) why the best interests of the child are served by this

6
disposition and (b) what alternative dispositions were
considered by the Court and discussed as to why they were not
appropriate in said case.
Although the di strict court referenced the transcript of the proceedings, th at
transcript does not contain the necessary findings of fact. The transcript of the final
disposition hearing on September 30, 2020, contains the following explanation by the
district court:
The concern I have here, however, is that you picked up
these four new serious felony cases within a couple of months
after completing the program at [West Central].
Sending you to that placement obviously was an effort
at trying to help you get skills and t ools that you will need to
function in society, and for whatever reasons, that did not work
out.
That explanation does not include particularized findings explaining why the disposition
served public safety and J.D.C.’s best interests, what alternative dis positions the district
court considered and why those dispositions were not appropriate, why preserving J.D.C.’s
present custody did not serve public safety and J.D.C.’s best interest, or the suitability of
the placement. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(b); Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05,
subd. 2(A).
In sum, the district court did not make the findings required by statute and rule.
Procedural Deficiencies
J.D.C. contends that the following five procedural deficiencies provide additional
grounds for relief. First, the district court did not make specific findings regar ding his
mental-health and chemical -dependency treatment needs, which are required when a

7
juvenile is found delinquent based on commission of an offense that would be a felony if
committed by an adult. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subd. 1(a)(12). Second, no case plan
was completed or incorporated into the district court’s disposition order, which is required
if a n out -of-home placement will potentially exceed 30 days. See id., subd. 5 (2020).
Although the disposition order does not include specific findings regarding J.D.C.’s
mental-health and chemical -dependency treatment needs, it does incorporate an existing
case plan regarding J.D.C. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.198, subds. 1(a)(12), 5.
Third, the district court ordered probation to complete a probation investigation
report, but that report was not filed with the district court three days before the disposition
hearing or made available to J.D.C. during that time, which is required under the procedural
rules. See Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.03, subd. 4. Although it is not clear that the
probation investigation report was filed with the district court, defense counsel told the
district court at the September 16 hearing that he had received the report that morning. See
id. J.D.C. does not show that he was prejudiced as a result of that timing. Cf. Minn. R.
Crim. P. 31.01 (stating that any error that does not affect substantial rights must be
disregarded).
Fourth, J.D.C. remained in custody for 54 days between the plea hearing and the
final disposition hearing, even though the district court must hold the disposition hearing
for a juvenile held in detention within 15 days , with authority to extend that time period
once for 15 days. See Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.02, subds. 1(B), 3. And fifth, the district
court issued the disposition order six days after the disposition hearing even though it was
required to enter the disposition order within three days unless good cause existed. See id.,

8
subd. 2. Although J.D.C. complains about the timing of the final disposition hearing and
order, he did not raise those issues in the district court. This court generally considers only
those arguments that were made in and considered by the dist rict court. In re Welfare of
D.W., 731 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Minn. App. 2007). Moreover, J.D.C. does not show that he
was prejudiced by the delay. Cf. Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.01. Indeed, the record indicates that
the district court delayed the disposition hear ing to fully explore all programming options
for J.D.C . It is understandable that J.D.C. did not object to the resulting delay, which
allowed exploration of disposition options other than MCF-Red Wing.
In sum, the additional procedural deficiencies alleged by J.D.C. do not provide a
basis for relief, except to the extent that they identify a need for additional findings.
Remedy
Having concluded that the disposition order is not supported by sufficient findings,
we turn to the issue of remedy. Although the parties agree that a remand is appropriate ,
they disagree regarding the scope of remand. J.D.C. contends that his disposition must be
reversed and that he must receive a new disposition hearing. He argues that the record
does not establish that his placement at MCF-Red Wing is the least restrictive disposition
necessary to ensure public safety or that the placement is in his best interest. The state
counters that J.D.C. is not entitled to a new disposition hearing and that the case should be
remanded for the limited purpose of requiring the district court to make findings to support
the disposition.
In N.T.K., a juvenile challenged the district court’s disposition order placing him at
MCF-Red Wing, arguing that the evidence did not support that placement and that the

9
district court’s findings were insufficient. 619 N.W.2d at 211. Because we concluded that
the district court’s findings were inadequate, we did not address the juvenile’s argument
that the record did not support his placement; instead, we reversed and remanded the case
for the “limited purpose” of requiring the district court to make the required findings of
fact. Id. at 212. We noted that although “the evidence may very well ultimately support
the disposition, the findings lack the completeness required by statute and rule.” Id.
In R.V., another delinquency case involving a challenge to the adequacy of findings
in support of an out-of-home placement, we reversed the disposition and remanded for
“additional findings addressing the placement” because “the district court failed to issue
sufficient findings to ensure that it considered all the relevant factors and to facilitate
appellate review.” 702 N.W.2d at 304, 308. We noted that “[a]lthough the evidence may
support the disposition ultimately, the findings lack the completeness required to guarantee
that the district court considered the relevant factors.” Id. at 308.
J.D.C. argues that we should reject his placement at MCF -Red Wing on the merits
and order a new disposition hearing, instead of simply remanding for additional findings.
But without specific findings, we cannot make an informed decision regarding whether the
record supports his placement at MCF-Red Wing. We therefore do not consider the merits
of the placement, and we limit the purpose of the remand, consistent with our approach in
N.T.K. and R.V.
J.D.C. also argues that we should order the district court to expedite his case on
remand because he has already spent several months at MCF -Red Wing. Because th e
juvenile in N.T.K. had already spent seven months at MCF -Red Wing, we instructed the

10
district court “to undertake an expedited review of [the] matter, including [the juvenile’s]
progress to date, and issue written findings of fact comporting with the statutory and rule
requirements.” 619 N.W.2d at 212 (emphasis added). A similar approach is warranted
here.
Conclusion
We reverse and remand for the limited purpose of requiring the district court to
undertake an expedited review of this matter, including J.D.C.’s progress to date , and to
comply with the finding requirements set forth in statute and rule. We recognize that the
district court invested significant time and resources identify ing a disposition option for
J.D.C. But the district court must provide findings that show its consideration of all the
relevant factors.
Reversed and remanded.