In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0968

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:

J. K. T., J. K., L. S., Parents.

Filed February 22, 2022
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

LeSueur County District Court
File No. 40-JV-21-11

Mallory K. Stoll, Blahnik, Prchal & Stoll, PLLC, Prior Lake, Minnesota (for appellant
J.K.T.)

Brent Christian, Le Sueur County Attorney, Robert C. Whipps, Assistant County Attorney
(for respondent Le Sueur County Department of Human Services)

J.P.K., Omaha, Nebraska (pro se respondent)

L.L.S., Mankato, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Richard P. Ohlenberg, Ohlenberg Law Office, P.C., Prior Lake, Minnesota (for children)

Linda Gerr, Faribault, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decide d by Jesson, Presiding J udge; Larkin, Judge; and
Bryan, Judge.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
Following a police raid at appellant-mo ther J.K.T.’s home, respondent LeSeuer
County Department of Human Se rvices (the county) took custody of he r three children.
Mother initially resisted complying with the case plan developed by the county to reunify
her with the children. But ev entually she entered treatment and began to make progress.
Despite this, the district court terminated mother’s parental rights because it concluded that
the county proved four statutor y grounds supporting termination. Mother argues that the
district court erred by determining that (1) the county made reasonable reunification
efforts, and (2) any of the four statutory grounds for termination were met. We affirm.
FACTS
Police officers searched mo ther’s home in February 2020 after a confidential
informant conducted three controlled buys of methamphetamine from her. Officers found
methamphetamine paraphernalia out in th e open, accessible to the children, and
methamphetamine in mother’s purse. During the search, Child 1 (age 16) and Child 3 (age
one) were home, and Child 2 (age 11) was at school. An officer contacted child protection,
and a social worker took all three children to a foster placement. Following an emergency
hearing, the district court determined that the children were in need of protection or services
and granted interim legal custody of them to the county. The court directed the county to
create a case plan for mother.
3
Initial Lack of Progress
At first, mother did not co mply with her case plan. She initially refused to discuss
the plan with the social worker. And after a court hear ing, mother submitted a urinalysis
(UA) that tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. The district court, however,
ordered the county to begin supe rvised visits between mother and the children in March.
But the first supervised visit did not go well. Mother made inappropriate comments about
the case and the foster home, and the children were visibly distraught. Mother missed six
more UAs in March that were considered presumptive positives.
Mother completed a parental-capacity asse ssment in April. Du ring the supervised
interaction part of the assessment, the social worker explained to mother that Child 3 had
special medical needs and could not eat solid fo ods. Despite the warning, Mother denied
Child 3 having medical issues and fed him pizza. Based on records, an interview, and her
own observations of mother and the children, the assessor concluded that mother was not
fit to parent the children because she had unresolved trauma, was resistant to professional
help, and accepted no responsibility for her past actions. And despite mother’s denial of
Child 3’s medical issues, doctors who evaluated him concluded that he was
developmentally delayed and found scarring on his eardrums that suggested multiple
untreated ear infections while in mother’s care.
Between the initial parenting assessment and the next hearing in June, mother made
little to no progress on her cas e plan. While mother comp leted a chemical-dependency
evaluation, she had not yet followed its reco mmendation to enter treatment. Mother had
submitted two negative UAs, but she submitted one that test ed positive and twelve other
4
UAs were considered presumptively positive because she missed eleven and tampered with
one. She had not completed a diagnostic assessment or a ttended a parenting-education
class as required. And mother continued to behave inappropriately at visitations.
At a review hearing in June, mother admitte d that her issues with mental health, past
trauma, and drug use affected her ability to care for her children. The district court adopted
the county’s case plan in its order and required mother to complete another
chemical-dependency evaluation and follow all recommendations, submit to random UAs,
complete a diagnostic assessment and follow recommendations, attend parenting education
classes, and comply with court orders. The court set the next review hearing for August.
Suspension of Parenting Time
During the summer of 2020, mother con tinued to behave inappropriately at
supervised visitations. Child 1 refused to attend the visits b ecause he did not want to see
mother. Children 2 and 3 went to the visits, but the foster parent reported that Child 2 did
not want to go either. The county continue d sending Child 2 to th e visits, but Child 2
reported that mother still complained to her about the case. And at a visit in early August,
mother was asked to leave because she star ted yelling. Law enfo rcement eventually
removed mother, but Child 2 was scared and upset.
After this incident, mother entered chemical-health inpa tient treatment. A UA on
her admission to treatment tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. And when
mother entered treatment, she was pregnant with another child.
At the August review heari ng, the district court suspended mother’s parenting time.
The court found that mother had been disruptive during some visits and had missed others.
5
And the court relied on the guardian ad lite m’s opinion that visits with mother were
detrimental to the children’s wellbeing. Th e court ordered that mother’s parenting time
could resume after she completed a diagnos tic assessment and a neuro-psychological
assessment, followed the recommendations of both assessments, and made significant
progress in addressing her mental health.
In September, the county upda ted the district court on mo ther’s progress. At this
point, mother had been in chemical-depende ncy treatment for around 40 days. Upon the
county’s recommendation, the district court permitted remote video visits to allow mother
to rebuild trust with the children with the ultimate goal of resuming in-person visits. The
district court later required mother to comple te an updated parental-capacity assessment.
And in October, the court allowed mother to have bi-weekly in-person visits with Child 3
at the treatment center.
In December, mother participated in a nother supervised parent-child observation
with Child 3 for an updated parenting assessment. Mother exhibited appropriate parenting
behaviors during the observation. But Child 3 did not demonstrate a ttachment to her: he
did not make eye contact with her and showed no distress when she left the room. The
parenting assessor also visited Child 3 at the foster home and observed that he was attached
to the foster parent. And the foster parent relayed that Child 3’s behavior was substantially
worse following visits with mother. The parenting assesso r concluded that permanency
for the children should be es tablished outside of mother’s care because the older two
children did not want to live with mother, and Child 3 was not attached to her.
6
Termination Petition
In January 2021, th e county petitioned to terminate mother’s parental rights to all
three children. The county acknowledged that mother had made some progress on her case
plan but noted that the parenting assessors concluded that her progress in treatment was
not sufficient to enable her to meet the children’s needs. At this point, mo ther lived in
sober housing through an outpatient treatmen t program. But Child 1 was too old to live
with her there, and the guardian and a ssessors recommended against separating the
siblings.
On February 1, 2021, mother complete d a final parental-capacity assessment.
Children 1 and 2 refused to par ticipate, so the evaluator sa w mother interact only with
Child 3. At this time, mother was close to giving birth to the new baby. At a supervised
observation, Child 3 again displayed little evidence of attachment to mother. But he began
to warm up to mother towards the end of the observation session, and mother displayed
improved parenting skills. The assessor opined that moving Child 3 from the foster home
back to mother would harm the child because mother would not be able to meet his special
needs.
1
On February 4, 2021, the district court su spended all visitation with the children. In
an update, the social worker had informed the court that Child 3 had reacted negatively to
a video visit with mother. The court relie d on information from the social worker, the

1 The assessor recommended that mother be allowed to pa rent her not-yet-born child,
because she had made substantial improvem ents to her stability , and the new child
presented a chance for a fresh start.
7
guardian ad litem, both parenting assessors, and the preferences of Children 1 and 2 in
concluding that all visits s hould cease. The court allowed the older children to resume
video visits at their own discretion, but it relied on the guardian’s opinion that video visits
with Child 3 were detrimental to him.2
Trial
In June, the matter proceeded to trial. The county called the social worker, the
guardian ad litem, both parenting assessors, Child 3’s pediatrician, the children, and
mother, among others, to testify. The social worker testified about mother’s initial lack of
progress on the case plan and the children’s medical and mental health issues. The guardian
ad litem testified that remaining in the foster home was in the children’s best interests, and
that mother lacked insight into how she had traumatized the children. The first parenting
assessor testified that the children were not a ttached to mother but were strongly bonded
to each other and should not be separated. And the second assessor testified that mother’s
denial of responsibility and la ck of empathy for the children showed that she lacked the
capacity to safely parent them. Child 3’s pediatrician testified about Child 3’s many
medical needs and opined that the root cause of his developmental delay was prenatal
exposure to methamphetamine.
Children 1 and 2 testified abou t their lives prior to remova l. Child 1 testified that
mother beat him and Child 2, and that she always left marks when she did so. Both children

2 In a later update, the social worker relayed that Child 3’s behavior had improved after the
video visits stopped. And in a third update in March, the social worker again reported that
Child 3 had shown significant progress in health and behavior.
8
often had to care for Child 3 while mother was away, and Child 1 frequently missed school
as a result. Mother gave Ch ild 1 marijuana as compensation for childcare. Child 2 also
testified about having marks or bruises from physical discipline, and that the children often
did not have enough food to eat or clothes to wear that fit them properly. Mother did not
take the children to doctor’s appointments. And bo th children testifie d that mother had
been involved in multiple dome stic disturbances in front of them. Finally , both children
testified that they wanted to remain in the foster home instead of returning to mother.
Mother refuted the majority of the allegations of neglect at trial. She denied ever
physically injuring Child 1 or 2. She deni ed using controlled subs tances while pregnant
with Child 3. And she denied ever neglecti ng the children’s medical needs. But mother
admitted that her drug use had traumatized her children. She testified that she would be
able to meet the children’s need s if they were retu rned to her care. Because Child 1 was
too old to live with her at her sober housing, mother supported splitting up the siblings so
Children 2 and 3 could be returned to her.
Termination Order
After the trial, the district court terminat ed mother’s parental rights to the three
children. The court concluded that the c ounty’s reunification ef forts were reasonable
because it provided mental- a nd chemical-health treatment, assistance with housing, and
parenting classes and assessments to mother. Then the district court concluded that the
county had shown four statutory grounds supporting termination: (1) that mother neglected
her parental duties, (2) that mother was palpab ly unfit to be a parent, (3) that reasonable
efforts had failed to correct the conditions lead ing to the children’s re moval, and (4) that
9
mother had caused egregious harm to her ch ildren. Finally, the court concluded that
terminating mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
Mother appeals.
DECISION
A district court may terminate parental rights if (1) at least one statutory ground for
termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the county made reasonable
reunification efforts, and (3) termination is in the children’s best interests. In re Welfare
of Child. of S.E.P. , 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008); see Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 1(b) (2020) (listing statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights).
In reviewing a termination order, we review the underlying findings of fact for clear error
and the determination of whether a statutory ground for termination exists, as well as the
court’s ultimate decision to terminate parent al rights, for an abuse of discretion. In re
Welfare of Child of J.H. , 968 N.W.2d 593, 600 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn.
Dec. 6, 2021). With these st andards in mind, we turn firs t to whether the county made
reasonable reunification efforts and second to whether it proved one of the statutory
grounds supporting termination.
I. The county’s reunification efforts were reasonable.
Mother argues that the county’s efforts were not reasonable because it did not
provide her enough visitation opportunities and it did not offer her services to remedy either
the children’s attachment issues or her use of physical discipline.
10
When evaluating the reasonableness of a count y’s reunification efforts, the district
court must consider whether the services were:
(1) relevant to the safety and protection of the child;
(2) adequate to meet the needs of the child and family;
(3) culturally appropriate;
(4) available and accessible;
(5) consistent and timely; and
(6) realistic under the circumstances.
Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2020). Additionally, the district court must consider the length
of time that the county was involved and the quality of its efforts. In re Welfare of Child
of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 655 (Minn. App. 2018 ). And because we review the court’s
factual findings for clear error, we will not re verse unless we are left with a “definite and
firm conviction that a mi stake has been made.” Thornton v. Bosquez , 933 N.W.2d 781,
790 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted); J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 601 n. 6 (applying clear error
review in termination of parental rights appeal).
Here, the district court found that th e county made the following reunification
efforts: chemical-dependency evaluations for mother, parenting education, counseling and
therapy, a mental-health assessment, parenti ng-capacity assessments , attempts to help
mother secure housing, transportation and ga s cards, supervised visits, and out-of-county
UAs. The court concluded that these services were reasonable.
The record supports this c onclusion. The county provided drug-testing services to
mother, facilitated a chemical -dependency evalua tion, and encouraged her to attend
inpatient treatment as recommended for severa l months before she entered the program.
The county offered mental-hea lth assessments to assist mo ther in resolving her own
11
underlying trauma and parenti ng classes with the aim of en abling her to better meet the
children’s needs. The mental-health support and parenting education reasonably attempted
to remedy the attachment issues and mother’s use of physical discipline.
And the record shows that much of the lack of visitation was due to mother’s
behavior. She cancelled multiple visits, some times after learning that she would be
required to submit a UA before the visit bega n. The court first suspended parenting time
after mother had to be removed from the su pervised-visit location by law enforcement.
Later, the court—at the county’s recommendation—allowed mother to resume video visits
with the goal of returning to in -person visits. And after mother had been in treatment for
about two months, the court allowed her to have in-person vis its with Child 3 again. But
those in-person visits proved detrimental to Child 3’s behavior and wellbeing. The district
court, following the recommendations of th e parenting evaluators and the guardian ad
litem, then suspended all visits.
Viewing the record as a whole, the dist rict court did not clearly err by concluding
that the county’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances.
II. The county proved that mother neglected the children.
Mother argues that the county did not prove that she neglected her children because
the district court’s findings centered around her past behavior in stead of her present
circumstances. We “closely scrutinize the sufficiency of the ev idence supporting a
statutory ground for termination to dete rmine whether the evidence is clear and
convincing.” J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 602. Although the district court concluded that the
county proved four statutory grounds, we need only conclude that one ground is supported
12
to affirm. In re Welfare of P.R.L. , 622 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Minn. 2001). We turn to the
statutory ground of neglect of parental duties.
A district court may terminate parental rights if “the parent has substantially,
continuously, or repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with” their parental duties and
reasonable efforts by the county have failed to correct the conditions that led to the
termination petition. Minn. St at. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2). Parental duties include
providing necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, and education as well as facilitating
the children’s physical, mental, and emotional health and development. Id. In reviewing
evidence of neglect, we address the conditions at the time of the termination hearing and
whether the conditions are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In re Welfare
of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980).
Here, the district court found that mother neglected her parental duties because she
did not demonstrate an understanding of her children’s medical needs, did not facilitate the
children going to school, ignored medical advice relating to the youngest child, did not take
the children to medical appointments, and did not provide adequate food or clothing. And
the court concluded that mother’s refusal to accept responsibility showed that she was not
able to fulfill these parental responsibilities in the future. As a resu lt, the district court
determined that her neglect was likely to continue for an indeterminate period.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the county established by clear and convincing
evidence that mother neglected her parental duties.
The record supports the court’s determination. Mother failed to adequately care for
the children while they were in her care. She did not acknowledge the children’s medical
13
needs and did not take them to doctor’s a ppointments. Child 3 has extensive medical
problems and developmental delays caused by mother’s use of methamphetamine while he
was in the womb and worsened by her failure to seek treatment for him. Mother routinely
left the home, forcing Children 1 and 2 to care for Child 3 while she was away. Child 1
often missed school as a result. And the children did not al ways have enough food to eat
and lacked clothing that would fit them.
Further, the parenting assessments indicat e that mother has not demonstrated
sufficient progress to show that she would be better able to care for the children if they
were returned to her care. At trial, mother denied most of the above allegations of neglect.
A persistent theme of the parenting assessments was that mother’s denial of accountability
for the conditions that initially led the children to be remo ved from her care showed that
she was not capable of addressing those cond itions. Mother’s own mental-health issues
and unresolved trauma prevents her from understanding or empathizing with her children’s
needs. Even the improved parenting skills sh e demonstrated later in this case were
insufficient to address the seco nd parenting assessor’s concerns because mother was still
not able to accept the reality of Child 3’s medical needs, nor the extent to which she caused
his developmental issues.
And despite her progress in treatment, the record shows that mother is not in a
position to provide a safe home for the children. Mother has not demonstrated the ability
to remain sober outside of a controlled setting such as treatment. She is not working and
has no means to provide for the children. And while she has housing for herself, she is not
able to house all three child ren. Everyone who opined on the matter besides mother
14
testified that the children should not be split up because they are closely bonded with each
other. Accordingly, the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the
district court’s findings that the county proved the statutory ground of neglect by clear and
convincing evidence.
Still mother argues that because she is capable of parenting her newborn child, she
is capable of parenting her older children and that the district court “failed to acknowledge
this critical evidence.” But the newborn child is not sim ilarly situated to the older three
children. The social worker testified that the older children “have a history of exposure,
trauma [inflicted] by [mothe r], neglect by [mother], when she was in active use [of
chemicals],” but that the new baby would not have this trauma because mother has been
sober and living in a supportive environment since his birth. And the second parenting
assessor opined that mother may be able to use her improved parenting skills to meet the
new baby’s needs in a way that she was unable to do for her older children. Accordingly,
the second parenting assessor recommended that mother initially keep custody of the new
baby, but not the older children.
In sum, the district court did not abus e its discretion by terminating mother’s
parental rights because the county showed that mother’s neglect of her children was likely
to continue for the foreseeable future.
Affirmed.