In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. W. and T. 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1347

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
M. W. and T. S., Parents.

Filed May 2, 2022
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-JV-21-244

John Chitwood, Chitwood Law, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant-father T.S.)

Victoria M.B. Taylor, Taylor, Krieg & Reinke LLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent -
mother M.W.)

Pete Orput, Washington County Attorney, Erin Johnson, Assistant County Attorney,
Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent Washington County Community Services)

Ann Flesher, Stillwater, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the termination of his parental rights to one child .
Because (1) clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s determination that

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
reasonable efforts have failed to correct the conditions leadin g to the child’s out-of-home
placement and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant T.S. (father) and M.W. (mother)1 are the parents of G.S. (the child), who
was born in April 2019. On August 30 of that year, mother was hospitalized due to mental-
health concerns. Oakdale police conducted a welfare check at the home the next day and
observed father to be intoxicated. The child was removed from the home on an emergency
basis and father was transported to the hospital due to his own health issues.
Respondent Washington County Community Services ( the county ) conducted a
child-protection investigation, during which father reported that he had been using alcohol
to manage tooth pain until he could see a dentist. He told investigators that he “took
responsibility for his action and indicated he was regretful,” but stated he did not “feel he
has a drinking problem.” The county filed a petition alleging the child needed protection
or services (CHIPS). The district court adjudicated the child to be CHIPS the next month
and continued the child’s placement with the county.
The county assigned a case manager to work with the family. With father’s input,
the case manager developed case plans that outlined services the county would provide and
father’s responsibilities. These court -approved plans required father to abstain from
alcohol and non-prescribed controlled substances , comply with random urinalysis testing

1 The district court also terminated mother’s parental rights to the child. Mother challenges
that decision in a separate appeal, No. A21-1357.
3
(UAs), complete outpatient treatment, “engage in counseling/therapeutic services ,” and
cooperate with the county. Father completed a chemical -health assessment, which
recommended chemical -dependency programming , and a parenting assessment , which
likewise recommended that father maintain sobriety and attend weekly therapy.
Father made progress through the end of 2019 and 2020. He successfully completed
an outpatient chemical-dependency treatment program. And he provided a series of UAs
that were mostly negative for non-prescribed controlled substances,2 but positive for
alcohol on several occasions , including in November 2019 and in August and December
of 2020. In December 2019, a psychiatrist diagnosed father with alcohol-use disorder and
noted his “present situation” suggests “ at least some ongoing difficulties” with substance
use.
Despite father’s ongoing challenges related to alcohol, the county decided to return
the child to father’s care after he moved into stable housing in August 2020. The placement
was conditioned on father’s agreement to demonstrate his sobriety through increased UAs
and drop-in visits from county personnel. Father tested positive for alcohol the night before
the child was to be returned to his care. He admitted drinking ; the case manager advised
that the child would be removed again if he continued to do so. Father agreed to resume
sobriety-support programming and “was adamant that he would not continue drinking.”
The county decided to move forward with the placement.

2 Father consistently tested positive for the presence of “Cannabinoid” due to his prescribed
use of medical marijuana.

4
In October, the county filed a permanency petition to transfer custody of the child
to father. The petition noted that father had been consistent in providing care and meeting
the child’s needs and continued to engage in supportive services. Mother objected to the
petition. The following month, the district court issued an order placing the child with
father. The order, among other things, directed father to abstain from non -prescribed
controlled substances, submit to UAs, and engage in therapeutic services.
On May 4, 2021, law enforcement observed father’s vehicle drifting between traffic
lanes on the highway and driving on the shoulder. Officers approached the vehicle when
it stopped at a gas station; the child was inside. Father had bloodshot eyes and his speech
was slurred. The officers smelled marijuana and “a moderate odor of alcohol.” Father
failed field sobriety tests, refused a breath test, and admitted to drinking alcohol earlier in
the evening. Officers found an empty whiskey bottle and a bag containing a leafy substance
in the vehicle. Father was arrested and charged with two counts of second-degree driving
while impaired (DWI). He has prior DWI convictions from 2015 and 2016.
The county removed the child from father’s care. Father denied drinking but
admitted using non-medical marijuana and that he was under the influence at the time of
his arrest . On May 26, t he county filed a petition to terminate father’s and mother’s
parental rights (TPR petition), alleging that the county’s involvement with the family since
2019 and father’s recent conduct demonstrate d that the parents were not able to
“consistently and safely parent” the child.
Trial on the TPR petition took place on August 17 and 18. Father testified that he
did not drink the day the child was initially removed in 2019 . And he denied having
5
multiple positive UAs for alcohol during the course of the child -protection proceedings
and drinking on the day of his 2021 DWI arrest. But he later admitted on cross-examination
to drinking once in November 2019 and again in August and December 2020, and that he
was aware there were orders prohibiting him from drinking alcohol at the time. He also
admitted to using non -prescribed marijuana despite orders proscribing the use of non -
prescription mood-alerting substances. Father stated that he does not believe sobriety will
be a problem in the future as he is now able to afford his medical marijuana prescription
more consistently and that he only uses medical marijuana “to help [him] function” and
not to manage his moods. And he expressed his belief that he was ready for the child to be
returned to his care.
The case manager testified that the two years of services had not corrected the
conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement. She noted that both times the
child had been removed from father’s care—in August 2019 and May 2021—were due to
father’s alcohol use. And she described father’s relapses, about which he was not honest
until confronted. The case manager was particularly concerned because father’s drinking
persisted despite his consistent participation in services designed to maintain his sobriety.
She also testified that termination was in the child’s best interest s as it would provide
needed stability and permanency as to the child’s care. The guardian ad litem (GAL)
opined that termination was in the child ’s best interest s as the child’s need for “safety,
security, stability and permanency” outweighed preserving a relationship with father or
mother. And t he GAL stated that she does not believe father was or would in the
6
foreseeable future be “able to safely care [for] and meet [the child]’s needs due to the
number of positive drug screens.”
After the trial, t he district court issued detailed findings o f fact and legal
conclusions. The court found the testimony of the case manager and GAL credible, as well
as father’s testimony regarding his love for the child, desire to care for the child, and his
physical- and mental-health struggles. But the district court found father’s testimony was
“not credible when describing his chemical health and whether there should be any concern
regarding his ability to remain sober,” citing his evasiveness about his use of alcohol and
non-prescription marijuana use during the past two years, and the fact that his testimony
about the 2021 DWI was “substantially in conflict” with that of the law-enforcement
officers. The court further found that the county made reasonable efforts 3 to address the
conditions that led to the child’s placement, but father was still unable to maintain a safe
environment for the child.
The district court conclud ed that clear and convincing evidence supports three
statutory grounds for termination: (1) neglect of parental duties, (2) failure of reasonable
efforts “to correct the conditions leading to the child’s placement,” and (3) the child’s status
as “neglected and in foster care.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (5), (8) (2020).
And the court determined that the child’s best interests would be served by termination of
father’s parental rights. Father appeals.

3 These efforts included transportation assistance, housing assistance, supervised visits,
chemical-health assessments and treatment, drug screening, parenting assessments and
education, and psychological screening and supports.
7
DECISION
I. Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s determination that
the county’s reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions that led to the
child’s out-of-home placement.

Parental rights may be terminated only for “grave and weighty reasons.” In re Child
of E.V., 634 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). We will affirm a
district court’s decision to terminate “when at least one statutory ground for termination is
supported by clear and convincing evidence,” when “termination is in the best interests of
the child,” and where “the county has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.” In re
Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008).
In reviewing a termination decision, we conduct a two -step analysis. First, w e
“review the district court’s findings of the underlying or basic facts for clear error.” In re
Welfare of Child. of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn.
Jan. 17, 2012). Findings are clearly erroneous “when they are manifest ly contrary to the
weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” In re Civ.
Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted) ; see also
In re Welfare of Child of J.H. , 968 N.W.2d 593, 601 n.6 (Min n. App. 2021) (applying
Kenney in a TPR appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 6, 2021). Second, we review the ultimate
determination “of whether a particular statutory basis for involuntarily terminating parental
rights is present for an abuse of discretion.” J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 901.
As noted above, t he district court determined that clear and convincing evidence
established three statutory grounds for termination, including the failure of reasonable
efforts under the direction of the county to correct the conditions leading to the child’s out-
8
of-home placement. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(5). Father does not challenge the
reasonableness of the county’s efforts. Nor does he contend that the district court’s
termination decision reflects abuse of discretion. Rather, father argues that the county did
not prove this statutory termination ground by clear and convincing evidence.
Father contends that the county failed to meet its burden because the evidence shows
that he “meaningfully and substantia lly complied” with his case plans and the county’s
efforts corrected the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement. The record
defeats both contentions.
There is “no . . . presumption that completion of [a] case plan amounts to a
correction” of the conditions that led to a child’s out-of-home placement. In re Welfare of
Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 89 (Minn. App. 2012). The “critical issue” is not whether
a parent technically complied with their case plan, but “whether the parent is presently able
to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child.” Id. The district court noted the
numerous services and programming the county made available to father and his consistent
participation. But the court found that “despite efforts and services to address his chemical
health,” father continues to use chemicals. More importantly, the district court found that
father’s ongoing use creates an unsafe environment for the child. The record amply
supports these findings.
The safety concerns that led to the child’s out -of-home placement in 2019 are the
same safety concerns that led to the child’s out -of-home placement in 2021—father’s
intoxication while caring for the child. The almost two years of chemical-health, parenting,
and psychological supports the county provided did not prevent father from abusing
9
chemicals while caring for the child. In both 2019 and 2021, father initially denied and
ultimately minimized the extent and impact of his chemical use. The district court found
father’s “lack of truthfulness, disclosure and minimization” about his chemical use “deeply
concerning . . . in the greater context of [father]’s chemical use and his ability to safely and
effectively parent [the child].” The record supports the district court’s expressed concern
about father’s ongoing chemical use. The chemical -health professional who assessed
father after the 2021 DWI reported that father has “poor recognition and understanding of
relapse issues” and described his risk for future substance use as “moderately high.”
In sum, the record demonstrates that the same conditions that led to the child’s out-
of-home placement—father’s chemical use that created an unsafe environment—remained
present and uncorrected , despite the county’s reasonable efforts, at the time of trial.
Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in terminating father’s
parental rights on this basis.4
II. The district court did not abuse i ts discretion in determining termination of
father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

In any termination proceeding, the best interests of the child are the “paramount
consideration.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2020). In assessing the best interests of
the child, the district court must make specific findings that analyze “the child’s interests

4 Because we conclude sufficient evidence supports this basis for termination, we need not
consider the other two statutory termination grounds. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.317, subd. 1
(2020) (stating a district court “may terminate parental rights” if it finds “by clear and
convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions” for termination exist); S.E.P., 744
N.W.2d at 385 (“We affirm the district court’s termination of parental rights when at least
one statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence . . . .”).
10
in preserving the parent-child relationship,” “the parent’s interests in preserving the parent-
child relationship,” as well as “any compe ting interests of the child.” Minn. R. Juv. Prot.
P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii). Where the interests of the child and a parent conflict, the child’s interests
take precedence . Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7. We review a best -interests
determination for an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of Child of J.R.R., 943 N.W.2d 661,
669 (Minn. App. 2020). But such a determination is “generally not susceptible” to a
“global review of a record ,” as such review “involves credibility determinations.” In re
Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 771 N.W.2d 538, 546 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
The record shows that the district court carefully considered the child’s interests and
balanced them against father’s interests in maintaining the parent -child relationship. The
district court found that although “[i]t is undisputed” that father loves his child and has an
interest in “maintaining the parent-child relationship,” father nevertheless has been “unable
to comply with the case plan and maintain sobriety.” And because the child’s interest in
having “a caregiver who is stable and sober and has the ability to maintain a safe, stable
environment” is paramount, this interest outweighs father’s in terest in preserving the
relationship. The record supports the district court’s findings. We decline the invitation
to disturb the district court’s deliberate and careful exercise of its discretion in deciding
that termination of father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.