In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. L. S. and G. L. S., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0791

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. L. S. and G. L. S., Parents.

Filed November 29, 2021
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Kanabec County District Court
File No. 33-JV-21-7

Anne M. Carlson, Anna M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant
A.L.S.)

Barbara McFadden, Kanabec County Attorney, Robb Hunter, Assistant County Attorney,
Mora, Minnesota (for respondent county)

Neil Faegerstrom, Cambridge, Minnesota (for respondent children)

Laura Moore, Isanti, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellant-mother challenges a district court order terminating parental rights to her
three minor children , arguing that the district court failed to adequately address the
children’s best interests. Because the record supports the district court’s determination that
termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant A.L.S. is the mother of three minor children, Child 1 born in 2006, Child
2 born in 2009, and Child 3 born in 2014. In January 2020, Kanabec County (the county)
received reports that the children were living in an unsafe environment , were not being
supervised, and were exposed to drug use. The county has had open cases with mother and
the children for around fifteen years related to allegations of neglect and abuse in the home.
The child ren’s father had been the children’s primary caretaker . However, he was
diagnosed with terminal cancer in January 2020 and passed away five months later,
heightening the county’s concerns for the children.
Following its investigation, the county filed a petition alleging that the children were
in need of protection or services (the CHIPS petition). The next day , law enforcement
visited the home to conduct a safety check. The officers found garbage and feces
throughout the home, no running water, and no edible food. The officers then removed the
children from mother’s care. The district court issued an ex parte order for emergency
protective care and on June 25 , 2020 , the district court granted the CHIPS petition by
default after mother failed to appear for two hearings . The district court placed a ll three
children in the county’s protective care.1

1 Child 1 had been living outside the family home with a friend ’s family even before the
district court order granting removal of the children. He remains in the care of that family
and wants to stay with them. Children 2 and 3 were placed in a temporary foster home in
June 2020 and were later moved to another home together. The three siblings regularly
see each other.
3
Mother began having supervised visits with the children in June 2020. During the
visits, mother would look at her phone and n ot engage with the children, she sometimes
fell asleep, and she had inappropriate conversations with the children. In July 2020, the
county filed an out -of-home placement plan for each child , which mother signed . The
county updated the out-of-home placement plans six months later, noting that mother had
made little progress during that time. Both plans required mother to complete an updated
chemical use assessment (CUA) and follow the CUA recommendations, reduce the number
of animals in the home, and cle an the home. Mother completed a CUA in July 2020 but
did not follow the assessment’s recommendations. From summer 2020 through April
2021, the district court ordered mother to follow the recommendations of her CUA at least
seven times. At one point moth er entered outpatient therapy but was discharged as
unsuccessful because she failed to attend therapy sessions.
In February 2021, the county filed a petition seeking to involuntarily terminate
mother’s parental rights to all three children. The county alleged four statutory grounds
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.301 (2020) in support of termination . The district court
conducted a three-day trial beginning on May 10, 2021. The district court heard testimony
from the county’s child protection social worker, county sheriff’s office investigator, the
guardian ad litem (the GAL), mother, and Child 1. Both the county social worker and the
GAL testified that, in t heir experience and professional opinion s, termination of parental
rights was in the best interests of the three children. The GAL also noted that the current
placements adequately address the children’s physical and emotional well-being.
4
On June 8, 2021, the district court issued an order terminating mother’s parental
rights to the three children. The district court found that the county proved by clear and
convincing evidence four statutory bases for termination of parental rights and that
reasonable efforts under the direction of the court failed to correct the conditions leading
to the child ren’s out -of-home placement. The district court agreed with the GAL’s
assessment that the children are doing exceptionally well in their out-of-home placements,
and it is in the best interests of the children to terminate mother’s parental rights. The
district court found that mother could not provide a stable environment for the children and
that their need for stability could only happen through the termination of mother’s parental
rights.
Mother appeals.
DECISION
Mother challenges the district court’s termination of her parental rights. Mother’s
sole argument on appeal is that the district court failed to adequately address the children’s
best interests. Parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.” In
re Welfare of M.D.O. , 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990). The decision to terminate
parental rights is discretionary with the district court. In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853
N.W.2d 127, 136-37 (Minn. 2014). A district court may not terminate a parent’s parental
rights unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the
child’s best interests. In re Welfare of Child. of R.W., 678 N.W.2d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004).
5
In analyzing the best interest s of a child, the district court should consider and
evaluate “all relevant factors,” Minn. Stat. § 260C.511(a) (2020), including “a review of
the relationship between the child and relatives and the child and other important persons
with whom the child has resided or had significant contact,” id. (b) (2020). The supreme
court has identified three factors that must be considered in every analysis of a child’s best
interests: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s
interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interests. In re
Welfare of L.A.F. , 554 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Minn. 1996); see also Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P.
58.04(c)(2)(ii). This court applies a clear -error standard of review to a district court’s
findings of fact, In re Welfare of A.D., 535 N.W.2d 643, 648 (Minn. 1995), and an abuse -
of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s ultimate finding of a child’s best
interests. In re Welfare of Child . of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 905 (Minn. App. 2011) , rev.
denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
Mother argues that because the district court failed to address the three best-interests
factors in its termination of parental rights ( TPR) order the district court’s findings were
inadequate. Thus, she argues, a remand of the district court’s decision is necessary. Mother
acknowledges that the district court order address es the children’s need for stability but
argues the court order omits other necessary best-interests factors including mother’s
interest in maintaining the parent -child relati onship and the children’s preferences.
Although the district court’s order does not explicitly articulate the three best -interests
factors, we disagree that the district court failed to consider these factors.
6
In its order, the district court relied on th e factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 260C.212
(2020) to make ten best-interests findings:
(1) The children’s current functioning and behaviors are
appropriately addressed by their foster placement; (2) the
medical needs of the children are being met by their placement;
(3) the educational needs of the children are being met by their
current placement; (4) the developmental needs of the children
are being met; (5) the children’s history and past experiences
are appropriately addressed within placement; (6) the
children’s religious and cultural needs are similar to their
current foster parents beliefs and are adequately address ed
within placement; (7) the children have sufficient community
connections to their school and faith community within
placement; (8) the chil dren’s interests and talents are
appropriately addressed within placement; (9) the children’s
relationship to current caretakers, parents, siblings, and
relatives are being addressed by regular visitation with
relatives, their mother and siblings ; (10) the reasonable
preference of the children, are adequately addressed within
placement.

But Minn. Stat. § 260.212, subd. 2(b), lists the factors the agency must consider when
making its placement decision for the children. It is not the correct statute for the district
court to reference when determining the best interests of the children in a TPR matter. See
In re Welfare of Child. of J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d 653 , 657 (Minn. App. 2021) , rev. denied
(Minn. May 18, 2021 ). And w hile these factors may be informativ e, including the
consideration of the children’s placement preferences and needs , the district court should
have explicitly cited and relied on Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) to make the best-
interests findings for the children. Rule 58.04 is the appropriate standard for the district
court to consider when analyzing the best interests of the children in a TPR proceeding.
7
Although the district court improperly cited the placement factors found in Minn.
Stat. § 260C.212, the order implicitly analyzed the third factor, the competing interests of
the children. The order made clear that “[m]other cannot provide a stable environment for
the children.” A stable environment for the children is an important consideration in
analyzing the competing interests of the children under best -interests factor three. In re
Welfare of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 92 (Minn. App. 2012). The district court found that the
children are doing incredibly well in their placements where they can participate in
activities they enjoy. The district court also found that mother does not currently have a
home that would be safe or healthy for the children nor does she have stable employment.
Thus, the district court found mother would have a “very difficult time supporting herself
and the children in a stable and clean home where adequate food was available.”
The district court also implicitly analyzed the other two best -interests factors: the
preferences of the children and mother’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship.
Both mother and the GAL testified that mother loves her children and wants to be reunited
with them. Child 1 stated that he wanted to remain with his friend’s family. The GAL
testified that Child 2 wants to be reunified with mother and that Child 3 is too young to
express a preference. The district court found the GAL’s testimony persuasive. The GAL
stated that she understood that mother “loves her children and very much wants to be
reunified with them.” From that testimony it was clear that mother has a strong interest in
maintaining the parent -child relationship. But the GAL testified that she did not belie ve
that mother would be “able to provide consistency, stability, and safety for the children
right now . . . or for the foreseeable future.” And the district court agreed with the GAL
8
that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate mother’s parental rights because
the children are stable and doing extremely well in their placements.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the district court found that
involuntary termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s be st interests.
While the district court did not include explicit findings on mother’s interest or the
children’s interest, the order shows that the district court considered testimony from
mother, Child 1, the county social worker, and the GAL on those factors. Reviewing the
district court’s order in its entirety, we conclude that the district court adequately addressed
all th ree factors bearing on whether the termination of parental rights serves the best
interests of the children. We therefore see no abuse of discretion.
In sum, because termination is in the child’s best interests, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by terminating mother’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.