A21-1168

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1167
A21-1168

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
L. K. G. and E. J. S., Parents (A21-1167),

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
L. K. G. and J. B. M., Parents (A21-1168).

Filed May 9, 2022
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge
*

Anoka County District Court
File Nos. 02-JV-20-571, 02-JV-20-396

Gretchen R. Severin, Munstenteiger & Seve rin, P.A., Anoka, Minnesota (for appellant
L.K.G.)

Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Kathryn M. Timm, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent ACSS)

Matthew Ralston, Ralston Legal, LLC, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for respondent E.J.S.)

Susan Drabek, Drabek Law Office, Circle Pines, Minnesota (for respondent J.B.M.)

Virginia Murphrey, Tenth District Public Defender, Kenneth Dee, Assistant Public
Defender, Anoka, Minnesota (for Child 2)

Judi Albrecht, Eagan, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant-mother appeals from the district court’s order for involuntary transfer of
permanent legal and physical custody of three of her children to their respective fathers,
arguing that the district court erred in its best-interests analysis. She argues specifically that
the district court’s order did not contain the “detailed findings” required under Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.517 (2020), because it erroneously applie d the best-interests standard used for
termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) cases rather than the best-interests standards used in
transfer-of-custody cases. We affirm.
FACTS
This child-protection case involves the tr ansfer of permanent legal and physical
custody of three of mother’s children to their respective fathers.1 In November 2019, after
child 2 reported that she was not safe at home, a police-officer hold resulted in the children
being placed in foster care. Child 2, child 3, and child 4 (then aged 12, 8, and 5 respectively)
were adjudicated in need of protection or services (CHIPS) under what is now Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.007, subd. 6(8) (2020), and were first placed in separate out-of-home placements.
In late November 2019, the district court placed child 4 with her father, where she has since

1 Mother has four children, designated by the district court as child 1, child 2, child 3, and
child 4. The numbers reflect the children’s birth order, and we adopt the nomenclature used
by the district court to identify the children. Child 1 is not involved in this appeal.
3
remained. In March 2020, the court ordered out-of-home placement for child 2 and child 3
with their father, where they have since remained. Father of child 2 and child 3 petitioned
the district court for permanent custody in April 2020, and father of child 4 petitioned the
district court for permanent custody in May 2020.
In May and August 2021, the district cour t held a three-day joint bench trial on the
transfer-of-custody petitions. At that time, the children had be en in out-of-home
placements for 628 days. At trial, the county presented testimony from the Anoka County
case manager, the children’s family mental-health practitioner, an employee from child 2’s
mental-health program, child 2’s individual th erapist, mother’s fo rmer drug-and-alcohol
counselor, the parenting educator, father of child 2 and child 3, father of child 4, and the
guardian ad litem. Mother and the children’s maternal grandm other also testified at the
trial. The district court found that the testimony credibly established the following facts.
In November 2019, the county received a welfare report concerning the children’s
living environment and mother’s drug use. The report was corroborated by a home visit
and mother’s urinalysis (UA) was positive fo r amphetamines. The case manager created
an out-of-home placement plan fo r mother that was approved by the district court. The
county offered mother servic es, including parenting educa tion, individual counseling,
mental-health assessments and services, chemical-health assessments and services, family
group conferencing, and long-term social serv ices including assistance with laundry and
dishes, lawn care, delivery of meals, skilled nursing services, and personal-care-assistance
services.
4
Mother’s engagement with her case plan was oppo sitional and hostile. Mother
inconsistently attended chemical- and mental-health treatment. When she did attend, her
limited participation was not constructive. She was unsuccessfully discharged from
chemical-dependency treatment after regular ly testing positive fo r methamphetamine,
getting into altercations with other treatmen t-program members, and refusing to accept
feedback or take any level of personal re sponsibility for her a ddiction. Although
recommended, mother did not enter or complete an inpatient treatment program.
Mother missed a quarter of her scheduled visits with the children under the
court-approved case plan and was late to other visits. During the visits that she did attend,
mother engaged in inappropriate behavior with the children. The parenting educator
testified that mother openly blamed child 2 for the child-protection proceeding,
interrogated the children about their fathers a nd what they were doing at their fathers’
homes, ignored the children when they talked about school or themselves and turned the
conversation to herself, complained about ch ild protection services, and manipulated the
children so that they became angry with one another and then failed to intervene when
things got out of hand. The pa renting educator reported that the family dynamic had not
changed in the four months sh e worked with mother and that the visits continued to be
“very chaotic.” The parenting educator testified that mother cannot recognize the cues and
needs of her children or how her own behavior hurts them. Often the children would
emotionally shut down or withdraw after interacting with mother.
Mother also engaged in similar misgui ded behavior with the children during
supervised phone calls. During one phone call with child 4, mother told child 4 to call the
5
police if she saw child 2. Mother also divu lged information about her medical conditions
to the then-six-year-old, child 4. One phone call with child 2 was “shut down” because of
mother’s inappropriate boundaries, and the case manager testified that child 2 was “upset”
after that call. Child 3 chose to no longer have phone contact with mother.
Mother was often antagonistic toward the children and their fathers. During a court
hearing in November 2019, mo ther “became so dysregulated that she began yelling and
screaming at the fathers of her children whil e the children were in the room.” The case
manager intervened to remove the children fr om the room. Father of child 2 and child 3
also testified to several occasions when he witnessed mother “yelling and screaming at the
[children] . . . inches from their face.” The case manager similarly testified that the children
told her that mother “yells and screams and swears” at them. She further testified that
mother “would scream and yell at [her].”
Both fathers testified that the children are doing well in their care. Father of child 4
testified that he provides for child 4’s physic al and educational care, takes her to dentist
and doctor’s appointments, and enrolled her in before- and after-school programming. He
testified that child 4 is “doing great” in his home and that, when she is with him, she is a
“normal, happy-go-lucky little kid. ” Father of child 2 and child 3 testified that “they’re
both doing good right now with [him].” He testif ied that he participates in therapy with
both children and that this has improved his communication with them. He testified that
child 2 is hanging out with friends a lot, interacting more, and “doing more family stuff.”
He described child 2 as “more happy with life” since moving in with him. Father of child
2 and child 3 testified that he and child 3 di d not have a bond before she moved in with
6
him, but they have “gotten really close.” He testified that child 3 interacts with him a lot
more, she has made a lot of friends at school and in the neighborhood, and “she’s just a
delight to have.” Father of ch ild 2 and child 3 testified that he supports their relationship
with child 4 and will continue to bring the children to scheduled visits to keep the siblings
connected.
The case manager and the gua rdian ad litem both testified that it was in the
children’s best interests that they remain with their fathers.
In August 2021, after hearing three days of testimony and receiving 95 exhibits, the
district court granted the fathers’ petitions and determined that it was in the children’s best
interests to transfer permanent legal and physical custody to their respective fathers. In its
best-interests analysis, the district court used a modified three-factor TPR standard,
determining that its decision to transfer custody of the children to their fathers “is based on
a careful and cautious balancing of: (1) [the ch ildren’s] interest in preserving [mother] as
[their] legal and physical custodian; (2) [mothe r’s] interest in preserving her role as the
legal and physical custodian of [the children]; and (3) the competing interests of [the
children] to be raised by a primary custodian who is willing and able to provide a safe,
stable, and clean environment.”
Mother appealed.

7
DECISION
In a permanency proceeding under Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.503-.521 (2020), a district
court may order any one of si x dispositions, including a tran sfer of permanent legal and
physical custody “to a fit and willing relative.” See Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4. An
order for such a transfer must include “detailed findings” on “how the child’s best interests
are served by the order.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.517; see also Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(b).
This statutory requirement must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Minn. R. Juv.
Prot. P. 58.03, subd. 1; see also In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D. , 865 N.W.2d 315, 322
(Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015).
Mother argues that the district court erred in its finding concerning “how the child’s
best interests are served by the order.” See Minn. Stat. § 260C.517(a)(1). She contends that
the district court did not apply the appropriate best-interests factors because it applied the
three-factor TPR test rather than best-interests criteria from Minn. Stat. § 260C.511. See In
re Welfare of Children of M.A.H., 839 N.W.2d 730, 744 (Minn. App. 2013); see also, e.g.,
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring a district court to make specific findings in
a TPR case that considers the child’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship,
the parent’s interest in maintaining the pa rent-child relationship, and any competing
interests). Because mother’s argument involve s the meaning of the statutes governing an
order for a permanency disposition, we review the district c ourt’s ruling on her argument
de novo. In re Welfare of T.P., 747 N.W.2d 356, 360 (Minn. 2008).
Minn. Stat. § 260C.515 governs perman ency dispositions. Section 260C.511
addresses “best interests,” and provides:
8
(a) The “best interests of the child” means all relevant factors
to be considered and evaluated. . . .

(b) In making a permanency disposition order or termination
of parental rights, the court must be governed by the best
interests of the child, including a review of the relationship
between the child and relativ es and the child and other
important persons with whom the child has resided or had
significant contact.

Minn. Stat. § 260C.511.
Mother contends that the district cour t erred when it applie d the three-factor
best-interests test employed in TPR cases. See In re Welfare of Child. Of J.C.L. , 958
N.W.2d 653, 656-58 (Minn. App. 2021) (distinguishi ng when to use the three-part best-
interests test for TPR cases from when to use the more ge neric best-interests test), rev.
denied (Minn. May 18, 2021). But the plain language of section 260C.511, the statute
mother argues that the district court failed to apply, directs the district court to consider
“all relevant factors” in determining the best interests of the children. Id. Here, given the
district court’s thorough and extensive findings of fact concerning mother’s parental
incapacity, adding the extra consideration of balancing the children’s interest in continuing
in their mother’s care weighed against mother’s interest in preserving her role as their
custodian and the competing interests of the children in being cared for by a safe and stable
parent is at least a “relevant factor.” We ther efore conclude that the district court did not
err by considering a modified three-factor best -interests analysis ordinarily employed in
TPR cases along with the many ot her factors that the district court considered to support
its ultimate disposition. In the context of record-supported findings that amply support the
9
orders transferring permanent custody of thes e children to their re spective fathers, the
district court’s consideration of the modified TPR standard was not legal error.
But even if the district court erred by applying the modified TPR factors in
transferring custody of these children to their respective fathers, the district court’s other
record-supported findings of fact amply support its conclusion. For example, in over eight
pages of findings about child 4’s relationships with her parents, the district court found that
her father enrolled her in school and before- and after-school programs, took her to dentist
and doctor appointments, and maintained his sobriety. The district court found that child 4
is a high-needs child and that her father is an appropriate placemen t. The district court
found that that he can provide her protection, education, care, and control. These findings
support the district court’s conclusion that the father of child 4 is a “fit, willing, and suitable
parent.” The district court found that mother —in spite of numerous services afforded her
under the court-approved case plan—made no notable improvements in her chemical,
mental, or physical health and that her interactions with child 4 were inappropriate. These
findings support the district court’s conclusion that mother cannot provide child 4 with a
safe and suitable environment that addresses child 4’s needs.
As for child 2 and child 3, in over ten pa ges of detailed findings, the district court
found that both children have high needs, and that their father pr ovides them safety,
stability, and routine. The district court found that the children are well-cared for and loved
in their father’s care. It found that their father ensured that child 2 and child 3 met regularly
with their siblings to mainta in their familial bond. These findings support the district
court’s conclusion that the father of child 2 and child 3 is a “fit, willing, and suitable parent”
10
and that he is an appropriate placement for th e children. The district court also found that
mother undermined attempts to stabilize child 2’s mental he alth by engaging in behavior
that caused child 2 to become dysregulated and in need of hospitalization. This finding
supports the district court’s conclusion that mother cannot provide child 2 and child 3 with
a safe and suitable environment that addresses the children’s needs.
On this record, if there was any error in using the modified three-factor TPR test,
that error was harmless. See In re Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d 170, 176 (Minn. App.
1997) (refusing to reverse termination of parental rights for harmless error).
The district court’s thorough and r ecord-supported findings concerning the
children’s best interests are consistent with section 260C.511 and the requirement that the
district court consider “all relevant factors. ” These record-supported findings also amply
support the district court’s orders transferring physical and legal custody of the children to
the two fathers.
Affirmed.