In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. D. B. and R. N. L., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0876

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
A. D. B. and R. N. L., Parents.

Filed January 18, 2022
Remanded
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-JV-21-445

Kimberly Stommes, Stommes Law Office, LLC, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for appellant-
mother A.D.B.)

Kyle R. Murray, Jason, W. Migala, Miga la Law Office, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for
respondent-father R.N.L.)

Katherine Solveig Malmanger, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for children T.H.B. and T.L.L.)

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Patrick M. Moen, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent Stearns County Human Services)

Stephanie Schwegel, Waite Park, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presid ing Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
On appeal from the district court’s order for involuntary transfer of permanent legal
and physical custody of appellant-mother’s children to respondent-father, appellant-mother
argues that the record does not support the district court’s findings of fact, that the transfer
2
is not in the best interests of the children, that respondent Stearns County Human Services
(the county) failed to make reas onable efforts to reunite the family, and that the district
court’s order did not contain the “detailed findings” required under Minn. Stat. § 260C.517
(2020). Because the district court’s order did not contain the requisite detailed findings, we
are unable to meaningfully review the or der on appeal, and so remand for further
proceedings in line with this opinion.
FACTS
Appellant A.D.B. is the moth er of four children; the custody of her children T.L.L.
and T.H.B., born in 2007 and 2008, respectively, is the subject of this appeal. Respondent
R.N.L. is father to both children. 1 In March 2020, mother gave birth to J.N.B., the half-
brother of T.L.L. and T.H.B. After mother and J.N.B. tested positive for several illicit
substances, including methamphe tamine, at the hospital, the county placed a protective
hold on the four children, removed the chil dren from the home, and initiated a child-
protection case. The children were eventually placed in fost er care with relatives while
mother worked with a social worker to complete her court-ordered case plan. The case plan
included drug testing, visitation with her children, and completion of chemical-dependency
treatment. Mother’s chemical dependency was identified as the main barrier to
reunification with her children.

1 Father has signed a recognition of parentage for both children, has been adjudicated as
the father of both children by court order, and is listed as the father on T.L.L.’s birth
certificate.
3
In January 2021, th e county petitioned for the perman ent transfer of custody of
T.L.L. and T.H.B. from mother to father. Th e district court held a joint child-protection
trial regarding permanency petitions for all four of mother’s children. After the trial, the
district court ordered the transfer of perman ent legal and physical custody of T.L.L. and
T.H.B. to father.
Mother appeals.
DECISION
A district court may “order permanent lega l and physical custody to a fit and willing
relative in the best interests of the child” after “the court has reviewed the suitability of the
prospective legal and physical custodian.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4 (2020). More
specifically, under Minn. Stat. § 260C.517,
an order permanently placing a child out of the home of the
parent or guardian must include the following detailed
findings: (1) how the child’s be st interests are served by the
order; (2) the nature and exte nt of the responsible social
services agency’s reasonable effo rts . . . to reunify the child
with the parent or guardian . . . ; (3) the parent’s or parents’
efforts and ability to use servic es to correct the conditions
which led to the out-of-home placement; and (4) that the
conditions which led to the ou t-of-home placement have not
been corrected so that the child can safely return home.

When reviewing a permanent transfer of custody, we review factual findings for
clear error and review the findi ng of the statutory basis for the order for an abuse of
discretion. In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315, 321-22 (Minn. App. 2015),
rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015); see also In re Welfare of Child. of J.R.B. , 805 N.W.2d
895, 900-01 (Minn. App. 2011) (holding, in a termination-of-parental-rights case, that we
4
review “findings of basic or underlying fact . . . for clear error” and “ultimate facts,” or a
district court’s “determination of whether a particular statutory basis . . . is present,” for an
abuse of discretion), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
Appellate courts do no t make factual findings. See Kucera v. Kucera, 146 N.W.2d
181, 183 (Minn. 1966). Meaningful appellat e review requires factual findings by the
district court. See In re Tanghe , 672 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Minn. App. 2003) (remanding a
termination-of-parental-rights case for failure to make specific findings on the best interests
of the children); In re Welfare of Child of J.R.R. , 943 N.W.2d 661, 669-70 (Minn. App.
2020) (concluding that the court of appeals cannot review an order without findings on the
best interests of the child in a termination-of-parental-rights case). Without factual
findings—and especially wit hout credibility determina tions when credibility is
important—we are unable to conclude whether a district court clearly erred when making
factual findings or abused its discreti on when making its ultimate decision. See In re
Welfare of Child of H.G.D. , 962 N.W.2d 861, 873 (Minn. 2021) (stating that appellate
courts defer to the district court’s credibility assessments because [the district court] “is in
a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses” (quotation omitted)); In re Welfare
of C.K. , 426 N.W.2d 842, 849 (Min n. 1988) (holding that “the lack of findings
substantiating the conclusion . . . makes it lit erally impossible under appropriate review
standards . . . to make a determination . . . that the juvenile court’s disposition was not
clearly erroneous”).
The district court was required to ma ke “detailed findings ” under Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.517. In its sparse, three-page order, the district court found that: (1)the county “has
5
made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with their mother” and “[t]hose efforts have
failed”; (2) transfer to father “would provide permanency for the child”; (3) father “desires
to have the care and custody of the children,” “is fit, willing, and suitable,” and “will
maintain the sibling relationship with all ha lf-siblings”; (4) the co unty “believes that”
father “has the capacity and disposition to give the child the love, affection and guidance
the children require and to raise them to adulthood”; and (5) “[i]t is in the best interests of
the child to transfer custody to their father.”
These conclusory findings are inadequate to allow meaningful appellate review. The
findings state the district court’s ultimate findings on two of the four statutory factors: the
best interests of the children and the reasonable efforts by the county to reunify the family.
See Minn. Stat. § 260C.517. The district court’s finding that the county’s reasonable efforts
“have failed” presumably is a finding that the conditions that led to the out-of-home
placement have not been corrected. See id. But the district court made no finding on the
third statutory factor—mother’s efforts and ability to use servi ces to correct her chemical
dependency.
But, even if we assume that the district court did make ultimate findings as to all
four statutory factors, it made few, if any, underlying factual findings to support the
ultimate findings on the statutory factors. For example, the am ended orde r does not
mention mother’s chemical depe ndency or describe any efforts, successful or otherwise,
by the county or by mother to address mother’s chemical dependency. In addition, although
conflicting trial testimony created factual dis putes, the district court made no credibility
determinations to resolve these disputes. For example, mother testified that she did not
6
participate in drug testing b ecause she did not have transpor tation to the testing site and
that she talked to he r social worker but was not offere d any solutions. Her social worker,
on the other hand, testified that she had re ferred mother to a transportation program for
transportation to testing but that mother never followed up, that she had driven mother to
supervised visits several times , and that the county had set up transportation to visits on
multiple occasions. The district court did not assess the cr edibility of either witness’s
testimony.
Thus, even if we were to ignore the lack of ultimate findings on all of the factors
listed in Minn. Stat. § 260C.517, without the findings by the district court on the facts that
would underlie those ultimate findings, includi ng credibility determinations, we cannot
review whether substantial evidence supports the permanent transfer of custody, as mother
asks us to do. See In re Welfare of A.R.G.-B. , 551 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn. App. 1996)
(holding that, in permanency proceedings, the court of appeals determines whether
substantial evidence suppo rts the district court’s determin ation that the statutory criteria
are satisfied). Therefore, we remand this case to the district court to make detailed findings
as required under Minn. Stat. § 260C.517. Pending completion of its work on remand, the
district court shall have the discretion to continue the current cu stody arrangement. The
district court shall also have the discretion to reopen the record as appropriate to make
updated factual findings.
Remanded.