In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. M. and M. A. C., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0801

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
M. A. M. and M. A. C., Parents.

Filed January 18, 2022
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Grant County District Court
File No. 26-JV-21-46

Matthew P. Franzese, Wheaton, Minnesota (for appellant-mother M.A.M.)

Justin Anderson, Grant County Attorney, El bow Lake, Minnesota (for respondent Grant
County Social Services)

Kent D. Marshall, Barrett, Minnesota (for respondent-father M.A.C.)

Dawn Krump, Tintah, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Pr esiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant-mother challenges the district court’s order terminating her parental
rights, arguing that she rebutted the presumptio n that she is a palpably unfit parent and
termination is not in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

2
FACTS
In November 2018, appellant-mother M.A. M.’s and respondent-father M.A.C.’s
parental rights to two of their children were involuntarily terminated in the state of
Washington. In the Washingt on termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) order, the court
found that mother was to address her chemical use, submit to random chemical testing, and
obtain mental-health evaluations and follow treatment recommendations. Mother provided
random samples, which tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). She also failed
to satisfy any other requirement.
After the family moved to Minnesota, respondent Grant County Social Services (the
department) learned of the Washington TPR. Records from Washington and the
department’s own subsequent involvement with the family include reports of (1) dirty
children; (2) neglected children; (3) a dirty home; (4) father being a registered sex offender;
(5) mother and father using methamphetami ne around the children and taking them on
“drug runs”; (6) mother and father’s five -month-old baby dying due to hyperthermia;
(7) children living in a condem ned camper without a roof, wate r, or electricity; (8) drug
paraphernalia lying around property; (9) mother and father refusing drug testing;
(10) father physically abusing a child; (11) mother fleeing with th e children leading to a
high-speed chase; (12) mother and father refusing to work with agencies; and (13) neglect
of the children’s medical needs.
In February 2020, mother’s and father’s parental rights to their two other children
were involuntarily terminated. The Minnesota district cour t in that case found that
mother’s claim that she cooperated with the responsible agency in the Washington matter
3
was contradicted by the Washington order. Additionally, mother failed to provide proof
of stable employment, failed to address her mental health, refused drug tests, and failed to
address her children’s special medical needs. The district court found that mother’s
“testimony was contradictory and lacked cred ibility” and concluded th at she did nothing
to correct the conditions that led to the 2018 TPR in Washington.
In February 2021, mother gave birth to a baby boy (the child). Prenatal screening
confirmed the presence of THC in the child’s umbilical cord. One week after the child’s
birth, the department filed a petition for em ergency protective care and to terminate
mother’s parental rights.1 The department alleged that mother’s parental rights should be
terminated, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.503, subd. 2(4) (2020), because her parental
rights to her other children were involuntarily terminated. The department requested that
the child be placed in relative foster care with his four sib lings where all of the children
would be adopted. The district court issu ed an order for emergency protective care
transferring custody of the child to the department.
In April 2021, the district court commenced a TPR trial. As the threshold issue,
mother was to present evidence to rebut the presumption that she is a palpably unfit parent
because her rights to her other children were involuntarily terminated. Mother had the
burden to produce evidence that she addressed issues related to housing, parenting skills,
employment, substance abuse, and mental health.

1 Father’s parental rights were involuntarily terminated. He has not filed an appeal.
4
Mother’s landlord testified on her behalf, stating that she has been mother’s landlord
since March 1, 2021, and mother was in good standing. An employee from a non-profit
organization that connects families with services testified that mother sought services in
February. Mother initially sought infant-care supplies because she still had the child in her
care. Mother then received certification in Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and took child-
safety classes. The employee testified that mother was “very eager for education” and
attended classes weekly. Mother’s employer testified that mother has been a waitress for
approximately two months, work ing 8-15 hours a week. He testified that mother is a
reliable, hard worker.
Mother testified that on Ap ril 2, 2021, she was approved for medicinal cannabis.
Mother testified that she underwent a chem ical-use assessment but did not receive any
recommendations for treatment. Mother clai med that she had a mental-health evaluation
and attended counseling. Although mother claimed that she engaged in these services prior
to the child’s birth, documentation showed that she began services after the child’s birth.
Mother testified that she and father were now married. Mother testified that she
planned to continue living with father, stati ng that she was unaware that his sex-offender
registration would require him to not reside with children. Mother a sserted that father’s
drug tests were positive because someone at the department “tampered” with them. When
asked how she changed since the 2020 TPR, she testified that she puts in more effort to
show that she is a good mother.
The district court found that mother did not know that she wa s pregnant until two
months before the child’s birth; consequently , she did not provide evidence of prenatal
5
care. It found that mother failed to provide evidence of participating in counseling, therapy,
or mental-health services despite being diagno sed with “a mental illness that is serious
enough to require prompt intervention.” The district court did not find mother’s testimony
credible and stated that her “attempts to paint herself as more successful and more involved
in services than she truly is are troubling.” The district court stated that “little has changed”
since the prior TPR orders and concluded that mother failed to rebut the presumption that
she is an unfit parent.
The district court then received evidence to address the issue of the best interests of
the child. The district court concluded that mother failed to correct the conditions leading
to the prior TPR orders, including mental-health issues and an inability to “recognize and
provide [her] children with necessary care.” The district court acknowledged that mother
showed some effort, but found her efforts “suspect,” and her testimony “less than credible”
because her effort did not begin until the child was removed from her care. The district
court also found that there wa s no evidence of an establis hed parent-child bond. The
district court found that TPR is in the child’s best interests. This appeal followed.
DECISION
On appeal from a district court’s TPR order, we review “the district court’s findings
of the underlying or basic facts for clear error, but we review its determination of whether
a particular statutory basis for involuntarily terminating parental rights is present for an
abuse of discretion.” In re Welfare of Child. of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App.
2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). “We give c onsiderable deference to the district
court’s decision to terminate parental rights. But we closely inquire into the sufficiency of
6
the evidence to determine whether it was clear and convincing.” In re Welfare of Child. of
S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted). The petitioner has the
burden to show that a statutory ground exists for terminating parental rights. In re Welfare
of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980).
The district court concluded that the department established by clear and convincing
evidence the statutory ground of presumed palpable unfitness. A district court may
terminate parental rights if it finds
that a parent is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and
child relationship because of a c onsistent pattern of specific
conduct before the child or of specific conditions directly
relating to the parent and child relationship either of which are
determined by the court to be of a duration or nature that
renders the parent unable, fo r the reasonably foreseeable
future, to care appropriately for the ongoing physical, mental,
or emotional needs of the child.

Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1( b)(4) (2020). A parent is presumed to be palpably unfit
“upon a showing that the parent’s parental rights to one or more other children were
involuntarily terminated.” Id. This presumption “is easily rebuttable.” In re Welfare of
Child of J.A.K., 907 N.W.2d 241, 245 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted), rev. denied
(Minn. Feb. 26, 2018). The burden of rebutting the presumption
imposes only a burden of prod uction, which means that a
parent may rebut the statut ory presumption merely by
introducing evidence that would justify a finding of fact that
[the parent] is not palpably unfit. In other words, a parent
seeking to rebut the statutory presumption needs to produce
only enough evidence to support a finding that the parent is
suitable to be entrusted with the care of the [child].

Id. at 245-46 (quotations omitted).
7
Here, mother argues that she rebutted the presumption because she showed that she
made suitable progress since the 2020 TPR. She claims that she obtained a chemical-use
assessment, which recommended no treatment, and she passed drug tests; she obtained a
mental-health assessment and sought therapy; and she found a home and employment. The
district court determined that mother failed to rebut the presumption. We agree with the
district court.
As the district court noted, when the 2 020 TPR petition was file d, mother did not
show that she did anything to correct the conditions that led to the 2018 TPR. Then, after
the 2020 TPR, mother did no t know that she was pregnant until two months before the
child’s birth. She did not receive prenatal care and used illegal drugs during her pregnancy.
Mother sought educational services only after the child was removed from her care. And
even though mother found a home, the evid ence mother presented does not show that
mother’s living arrangement supports a determ ination that she is not palpably unfit.
Specifically, mother plans to continue living with father, who had his parental rights
involuntarily terminated, is a registered sex offender, and who has positive drug tests. On
this record, the district court correctly de termined that mother failed to rebut the
presumption of unfitness.2

2 The statutory presumption imposes only a burden of producing evidence that would
justify a finding that mother is not palpably unfit. J.A.K., 907 N.W.2d at 245-46. Mother
had the burden to produce enough evidence to support a finding that she is “suitable to be
entrusted with the care of the [child].” See id. at 246 (quotation omitted). The department’s
evidence at the rebuttal-of-the-p resumption stage was irrelevant. Here, the district court
considered whether mother’s ev idence created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether
she is palpably unfit, and, in concluding that she failed to show that she is not palpably
8
Mother also argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining that
TPR is in the child’s best interests. If a statutory ground for TPR is proved, the paramount
consideration in determining whether parental rights will be terminated is the best interests
of the child. Minn. Stat. § 26 0C.301, subd. 7 (2020). “In an alyzing the best interests of
the child, the court must balance three factors: (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 compe ting interest of the child.” In re Welfare of R.T.B. , 492
N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1992); see also Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii). “We review
a district court’s ultimate determination that termination is in a child’s best interest for an
abuse of discretion.” J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 905.
The district court determined that TPR is in the child’s best interests because the
child and mother do not have a bond—the ch ild was a week old when he was removed
from mother’s care. The record shows that he has bonded with his current foster parents.
Additionally, the child has an interest in a relationship with his siblings, which he will have
if placed with the relative foster family. Finally, the district court concluded that mother
failed to address her ongoing mental-health issues, and she has an inability to provide
necessary care for the child. Mother failed to provide basic needs for her other children
and neglected their special medical needs. The district court stated that the evidence failed
to show “a genuine or long-ter m change in the conditions th at caused the present or the

unfit, thoroughly explained how her eviden ce fell short of mee ting that burden of
production.
9
prior terminations.” The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it is
in the child’s best interests to grant the TPR petition.
Finally, mother argues that, although the department is not required to develop a
case plan, she should not be de nied an opportunity to work a case plan. Under Minn.
Stat. § 260.012 (a)(2) (2020), “[r]easonable efforts to prevent placement and for
rehabilitation and reunification are always re quired except upon a determination by the
court that a petition has been filed stating a prima facie case that . . . the parental rights of
the parent to another child have been terminated involuntarily.” That is the case here.
The district court did not abuse its discre tion by concluding that mother failed to
rebut the presumption of unfitness, and TPR is in the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.