In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. J. C., M. S. H., II, and S. V. I., Parents.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0422

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. J. C., M. S. H., II,
and S. V. I., Parents.

Filed October 4, 2021
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-JV-20-534

Cean Franklin Shands, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant-mother D.J.C.)

Andrea Ryan Anderson, Stillwater, Minnesota (for appellant-father M.S.H., II)

Sharon L. Freiling, MFK Lawyers, South St. Paul, Minnesota (for the children)

Kathryn M. Keena, Dakota County Attorney, Jennifer Lynn Jackson, Jessica Ann
Bierwerth, Assistant County Attorneys, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota
County Social Services)

Shahna Fredrick, West St. Paul, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Florey , Presiding Judge; Connolly , Judge; and Reyes ,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant DJC, the mother of five children, and appellant MSH, the father of three
of her children, challenge the terminations of their parental rights, arguing that the district
court’s findings are not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the district
court failed to consider the children’s best interests. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant DJC is the mother of M’ANRC, now 15 (Child 1); SC, now 14, (Child
2); MSH III, now 10 (Child 3); MJH, now 9 (Child 4) ; and M’DH, now 3 (Child 5). 1
Appellant MSH II (MSH) is the father of Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5. SVI is the father
of Child 1, and the father of Chil d 2 is unknown. 2 Intervenor KW is the paternal
grandmother of Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5.
The family has been involved with social services departments in four counties in
recent years. In 2017, Stearns County conducted a family assessment (FA) after a report
of educational neglect; Polk County offered parent support outreach services (PSOP) to the
family; and Dakota County Social Services (DCSS) offered PSOP for housing, mental
health services, and grie f counseling. DJC did not respond to the o ffer of services from
DCSS.
In 2018, Hennepin County con ducted two FAs. One resulted from reports of
educational neglect of Child 2, Child 3, and Child 4; there was also an assessment of an
allegation of physical abuse. The other FA resulted from a report of failure to provide
medical treatment for an ear infection of Child 5; the family was referred to PSOP for
services.

1 Because many of the children’s initials are shared, we refer to them by birth order.
2The parental rights of SVI and of the unidentified father of SC were also terminated by
the district court in the decision on appeal, but SVI took no part in that decisi on and takes
no part in this appeal.
In February 2019, DCSS received a report of educational neglect of Child 3 and
Child 4 based on their unexcused absences from sch ool. In April 2019, DCSS received a
report of physical abuse of the children with a belt and a cord. DJC would neither confirm
nor deny that she had hit them with those objects. Later in April, after DCSS received a
report of DJC choking Child 2, DJC was charged with malicious punishment of a child, of
which she was later convicted. A permanency petition was filed to terminate DJC’s rights
to all five children, MSH’s rights to Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5, SVI’s rights to Child 1,
and the rights of an unknown father to Child 2.
In May 2019, while MSH was incarcerated, the children were removed from DJC’s
home and placed in foster care, where they have been for over 28 months and wish to
remain.3 DCSS filed a petition for them to be declared childre n in need of protection or
services (CHIPS), and they were adjudicated CHIPS based on DJC’s admissions that the
conditions of her home made it unsafe or inappropriate for the children and that she was
unable to provide them with appropriate shelter. A cas e plan was devised, and in June
2019, after MSH was released from jail, he was added to the case plan. In August 2019,
MSH and DJC reunited; they testified that they have been “in a combined
relationship/significant other partnership” and are a “parenting unit.”
In April 2020, DCSS filed a petition for termination of their parental rights. Also
in April, DJC was charged with theft after using another person’s credit card for
unauthorized withdrawals and purchases.

3 Child 2 was moved to foster care with another provider in January 2020, has remained
there, and wishes to remain there.
In October 2020, Intervenor KW, the mother of MSH and the paternal grandmother
of Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5, petitioned successfully to intervene as a matter of right,
and DJC and MSH filed a petition to transfer permanent legal and physical custody of all
five children to KW and her husband.4
A trial was held in October and December 2020. MHS, DJC, and Child 1 testified;
Child 2, who had been subpoenaed by MSH’s attorney but was not called to testify, was
asked by the district court to provide information. The child -protection soci al worker
(SW), the foster parent, and the guardian ad litem (GAL) testified that all the children wish
to remain with and be adopted by their current foster parents, who are non-relatives.
In February 2021, the district court issued findings of fact, co nclusions of law and
an order terminating the parental rights of DJC to all five children and of MSH to Child 3,
Child 4, and Child 5 on statutory grounds. DJC and MSH challenge the terminations,
arguing that the district court’s findings that DCSS made reasonable efforts to reunite the
family and that a transfer of the children’s custody to KW and her husband is not in the
children’s best interests are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. MSH also
argues that clear and convincing evidence does not support the district court’s findings that
the children are neglected and in foster care and that MSH failed to correct the conditions
leading to their out of home placement . Finally, he argues that the district court failed to
address the children’s best interests when terminating MSH’s parental rights.5

4 They identified themselves as the paternal grandparents of all five children, although KW
is not related to Child 1 or Child 2 and her husband is not related to any of the children.
5MSH’s additional argument that the district court erred in terminating his parental rights
because he was not entitled to notice of adoption is based on a misr eading of the district
DECISION
Appellate courts “affirm the district court’s termination of parental rights when at
least one statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence
and terminatio n is in the best interest s of the child, provided that the county has made
reasonable efforts to reunite the family.” In re Welfare of children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d
381, 385 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted).
1. Reasonable Efforts

The district court found that DCSS offered services that were timely, available,
relevant, and culturally appropriate for the children to prevent their placement in foster care
and to reunite the family. Specifically, it found that DCSS: (1) offered services to address
the mental health concerns of DJC and the chemical dependency concerns of MSH; (2) set
up supervised visitation for them with the ir children, including via computer when
necessary and vi a phone calls; and (3) provided general and specialized medical care ,
mental health care, and dental care for the children, all of whom struggle with anxiety,
depression, and anger, as well as with schooling. The testimony of MSH, DJC, and the
social worker (SW) provides clear and convincing evidence for these findings.

court’s Conclusion of L aw 3, which refers not to MSH but to the u nidentified father of
Child 2 and is therefore irrelevant to this appeal. MSH also challenges the district court’s
determination that he is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship, but,
while this determination appears in the unsigned copy of the district court’s decision MSH
submitted as an addendum to his brief, it does not appear in the signed copy of the decision
DJC submitted, in which the district court made no reference to the relevant statute, Minn.
Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4)(2020).
MSH argues that the county’s efforts with him were limited to having a social
worker explain the case plan and provide him with two referrals to complete a chemical
dependency assessment. But SW testified that: (1) she could not make psychological and
parenting referrals for MSH because such referrals cannot be made until the person referred
has achieved 30 days of sobriety , which MSH never did ; (2) MSH began treatment in
October 2020 but was discharged due to excessive unexcused absences ; (3) while in
treatment, MSH twice tested positive for chemicals; (4) when MSH had the opportunity
to telephone his children, he made no effort to call or otherwise contact them; (5) MSH did
not maintain contact with SW; and (6) MSH told SW that he had the right to not follow his
case plan.
MSH’s own testimony corroborates this. He testified that: (1) he has a chemical
dependency problem about which he is doing nothing because he prefers marijuana to the
medication prescribed for him; (2) he had not yet completed a tr eatment program; (3) he
committed and served time for aggravated robbery, but has developed and matured since
then;6 (4) he was innocent of a DWI charge in December 2020 because he had not yet been
proven guilty and pleaded the Fifth Amendment in regard to that incident; (5) he had told
SW that it was his right not to comply with his case plan ; and (6) he could not talk about
his children’s needs because he had not spoken to DJC or SW about the children or been
told what their needs were.

6 DJC testified that MSH was incarcerated for 72 months. He was released in June 2019.
DJC testified that: (1) she was in an apartment with a 24 -month lease because she
had changed the term on the lease from 7 months to 24 months, but the landlord had not
signed the altered lease ; (2) she would not be surprised if the landlord said the lease was
fraudulent; (3) during visitations with the children, she was sometimes riding in a car and
was once in a salon having her eyelashes done; (4) she was supposed to have random drug
and alcohol tests and her most recent test was positive for opiates and tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) had been two or three weeks prior to trial; (5) she did not know whether MSH was
complying with his drug -testing requirements and was not concerned that he had been
discharged from treatment ; (6) she had been late for or missed phone calls with her
children; (7) until the county took charge of the children, she was not aware that they all
needed medical, dental, and mental -health services; (8) she had been in “survivor mode”
and so neglected the children’s needs ; (9) she was not working, but would be able to stay
in her apartment until she chose to leave it; and (10) her malicious-punishment conviction
was based on statements Child 2 had made up. DJC pleaded the Fifth Amendment in regard
to the maltreatment and educational neglect of her children.
The testimony of both MSH and DJC provides clear and convincing evidence that
DCSS provided reasonable services, but that MSH and DJC did not comply with those
services.
2. Placement of the Children with KW
The district court explained that “[KW] offered to serve as a placement option for
the children. However, given the children’s ongoing resistan[ce] to being placed with
[her], this Court has not placed the children with her.” Again, the record supports the
district court’s decision. The GAL filed a report stating that Child 2 wishes to maintain a
relationship with KW, but does not want to be placed with her, and that the other children
“have indicated they do not want to be placed in her care.”
Testimony also provides cl ear and convincing evidence to support the district
court’s findings that the children do not wish to be placed with KW. DJC’s attorney
questioned Child 1:
Q. You know that [ KW] has petitioned the Court to have
custody of you. Are you aware of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how do you feel about that?
A. That is – that’s not something I want to do.

Child 2 was questioned by the district court:
Q. . . . [T]ell me what you want me to hear about this, okay?

. . . .

A. When we were living with [KW] . . . it was winter, and
there was a snow storm. We [she, her siblings , and DJC] had
to pack, and then we got kicked out in the middle of the snow
storm. We had to go to a hotel.
. . . . [A]nd then when my daddy came back from prison,
we moved back to [KW’s] house. . . .

. . . .

But when we were at [KW’s] house – we always . . . got
in trouble. And then my cousin got in trouble this one time.
So he had to get a whupping for it. And then we got a
whupping by them too.

KW denied this statement, saying that “[t]here has been no form of corporal abuse,
punishment, in my home.”
SW testified that she and DJC had discussed placing the children with KW in June
2019. When asked how the conversation proceeded, she answered:
[DJC] went on to tell me that , “That woman [KW] kicked me
and my babies out on the street, not once but twice, in the dead
of winter.” And then [DJC] stopped and said, “You know
what, don’t ask me. Ask my kids. They’ll tell you all about
it.”
. . . .

I said, “What are the kids going to tell me?” And [DJC]
said, “[KW] used to whup my kids. She’s put her hands on my
kids.” She said all of them are scared [of KW]. . . . And she
said, and I quote, “I hate to say this, but those kids are better
off with strangers than with [KW].”

But during the trial, DJC contradicted this. She testified that “I would rather for my
children to go to [KW] if they don’t come back home right away” and replied, “Yes,” when
asked if she felt that KW’s home “would be a healthy e nvironment for them.” DJC also
testified that she did not believe what her children said about suffering physical abuse from
KW, saying “[t]hey made it up.” The district court’s decision reflects that SW’s testimony
about DJC’s view of KW as a placement option was more credible than DJC’s trial
testimony. “Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district
court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” In re Welfare of L.A.F.,
554 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996).
Clear and convincing evidence supports both the district court’s finding that the
children do not want to be placed with KW and its decision not to place them with her for
that reason.

3. Neglected and in Foster Care
A district court may t erminate parental rights if it finds “that the child [ren are]
neglected and in foster care.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(8) (2020). The district
court found that the children were placed in foster care on May 1, 2019, and “have been in
foster care for over 21 months and are presumed to be neglected and in foster care.” They
have now been in foster care for over 28 months.7
“Neglected and in foster care” means children
(1) who ha[ve] been placed in foster care by court order; and
(2) whose parents’ circumstances, condition, or conduct are
such that the child[ren] 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 [ren] or providing financial support for the
child[ren].

Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 24 (2020). MSH argues that the district court failed to
specify what conditions or conduct would prevent the children being returned to him and
that “the record does not demonstrate that the agency made rehabilitative services ”
available to him. But the district court found that MSH
continues to str uggle with his chemical dependency and fails
to recognize the negative impact that his usage has on the
children. Furthermore, [his] criminal history has left him
absent for a great portion of the children’s lives. He has been
unable to foster a parent/child relationship with the children in
the past and continues to struggle with that now.

7 It is presumed that a county’s reasonable efforts to correct the conditions leading to a
child’s out-of-home placement have failed if the child has resided outside the home for 12
of the preceding 22 months o r, if the child is under 8, for six months. Mi nn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd, 1 (b)(5)(i)(2020).

MSH’s testimony supports this finding. Thus, the district court’s finding that the
children are neglected and in foster care is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

4. MSH’s failure to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement
A district court may terminate parental rights if it finds that “following the child’s
placement out of the home, reasonable efforts, under the direction of the court, have failed
to correct the conditions leading to the child’s placement.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
1(b)(5) (2020). A presumption that reasonable efforts have failed exists when (1) the
children have been outside the home for 12 of the preceding 22 m onths, or, for a child
younger than eight, for six months; (2) the court has approved an out-of-home placement
plan; (3) th e conditions leading to the out -of-home placement have not been corrected,
(which is presumed on a showing that a parent has not subs tantially complied with the
district court’s orders and the case plan); and (4) reasonable efforts have been made by the
social services agency to reunite the family. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5)(i -iv)
(2020). It is also presumed that reasonable efforts have failed if a parent who has been
diagnosed as chemically dependent and been required by a case plan to participate in a
culturally, linguistically, and clinically appropriate chemical dependency program has
failed two or more times to complete the program and continues to abuse chemicals. Minn.
Stat. 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5)(A) -(E) (2020). The record supports the district court’s
determination that these criteria have been met here. The record shows that MSH enrolled
in one program in September 2020 and was discharged after a month; reenrolled the week
that the trial opened in October 2020; was discharged by December 2020 ; and ent ered
another treatment program, but continued to test positive.
MSH does not dispute the district court’s finding s that: (1) he went to prison for
armed robbery and returned for multiple violations, including noncompliance with
treatment; (2) he had a DW I charge from 2019; (3) he will not address his chemical
dependency issues because he thinks the chemical use helps him deal with his mental -
health condition; (4) he says he has the right not to follow a case plan if he does not want
to follow it; (5) throughout the case, he tested positive for chemicals; (6 ) he testified that
his chemical abuse does not affect his ability to parent effectively; (7) although he said he
wanted to complete treatment so the children could return to him, he failed to complete any
of his treatment programs, and (8) he remains largely unaware of his children’s needs. 8
SW testified to the conditions of the home that led to the out -of-home placement:
no bedding for the children, frozen food they could not prepare for themselves, no clean
clothes, trash on the floor, Child 5 in a soiled diaper and pajamas with no clean diapers or
clothes in the house, and no supervision of the children. DJC did not think the cleanliness

8All five children have significant needs. The foster parent testified that, when the children
arrived in May 2019: Child 1, who had not been enrolled in school that year but was at
home caring for the younger children, needed to see both a doctor and a dentist, and is now
enrolled in individual therapy; Child 2 had a broken tooth, needed glasses, and had to see
an orthopedic specialist who said she needed to lose weight because of problems with her
feet and k nees; Child 3 was taken to an optometrist and an orthopedic specialist, is
receiving speech therapy and occupa tional therapy, has problems with bed wetting and a
low IQ, is developmentally delayed, is seeing a therapist twice a week , and is in crisis
intervention; Child 4 had an abscess in her mouth and several teeth that needed to be pulled
or filled, needed glasses, and needed vaccinating; and Child 5 needed vaccinations and
physical therapy to correct his standing posture, and receives daily mental-health treatment.
of the house was a problem and did not want the services the children needed, such as
dental work, speech therapy, and assessments.
MSH argues that, since he was in prison when the children were removed from the
home, he was not responsible for the conditions that led to their removal and is not
responsible for correcting the conditions. But while MSH’s chemical dependency was not
a reason his children were removed from th e home, since he was incarcerated and not in
the home when they were removed, his unwillingness or inability to deal with his chemical
abuse would again produce a home from which children would need to be removed. MSH
provided no basis to assume he would be able or inclined to attend to the children’s needs
or to prevent the conditions that resulted in their out-of-home placement.
5. Failure to consider children’s best interests
In any termination proceeding in which the district court finds the existence of a
statutory basis for terminating parental rights , “the best interests of the child[ren] must be
the paramount consideration. . . . Where the interests of parent and child[ren] conflict the
interests of the child[ren] are paramount.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.7 (2020). MSH
argues that the district court “erred by failing to adequately address the children’s best
interests” and that it “f ails to explain WHY a termination serves the ch ildren’s interests.”
But the district court wrote:
1.0 It is in the best interests of the children, . . . that parental
rights be terminated for the following reasons:
1.1 The parent [s] will not be able to care for the
children for the reasonably foreseeable future.
1.2 Both parents have failed to address the issues
and concerns that lead to placement in the first place. Both
parents also lack the understanding of the basic needs that the
children have.
1.2.1 The children each require special
attention as they are facing issues with mobility, with
cognitive understanding, and with mental and emotional
health.
1.2.2 Both parents have expressed little or no
knowledge of the children’s needs and are thus unable to meet
their needs at this time.

. . . .

4.0 The c hildren are deserving of a safe, stable, and
permanent home as they have been in foster care for over 640
days.[9]
4.1 The children require a caregiver that is capable
of meeting their medical and mental health needs. Neither the
parents nor the grandparents [i.e., KW and her husband] have
shown that they have the capacity to understand the se needs
and are thus unable to meet the children’s needs at this time.

. . . .

4.3 In weighing the desire of the parents a s well as
the children’s wishes, i t i s this Court’s belief that the
children’s best interest[s] are served by terminating the
parental rights of the parents and freeing [the children] for
adoption and is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 260C.513 that
termination of parental rights is preferred over transfer of legal
custody.

Thus, the district court’s order does address the children’s best interests and gives its
reasons for finding that termination is in their best interests.
MSH also objects that the district court does not mention his interest in maintaining
the parent-child relationship, but it is the children’s, not the parent’s, best interest that is

9 The children have now been in foster care for over 860 days.
paramount in a termination proceeding. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (“Where the
interests of parent and child[ren] conflict, the interests of the child[ren] are paramount.”)
The district court did not fail to address the children’s best interests in its opinion.
Affirmed.