In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. M. P., Parent.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1419

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
M. M. P., Parent.

Filed March 28, 2022
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-JV-20-4133

Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant
M. M. P.)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Kara Lillehaug, Assistant County
Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department)

Patricia J. Stotzheim, St. Paul, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
*
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department placed a newborn
in foster care and later petitioned to terminate his mother’s parental rights after the child
was born with controlled substances in his system. The district court granted the petition
after it found that the mother had failed to remedy the issues that caused the out-of-home

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
placement. Because we hold on appeal that the evidence supports the district court’s
determination that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, we affirm.
FACTS
M.M.P. used drugs daily during her 2019 pregnancy and gave birth to her son
A.A.P. in November, when both mother and child tested positive for amphetamines. The
district court granted Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department’s
petition to find that the newborn needed protective services. The county placed him in
foster care. It developed a case plan for M.M.P., which the district court adopted.
Soon after the child’s first birthday, the county petitioned the district court to
terminate M.M.P.’s parental rights alleging that she neglected her parental duties, she is a
palpably unfit parent, she failed to correct the conditions leading to A.A.P.’s out-of-home
placement, and A.A.P. is neglected and remained in foster care under Minnesota Statutes
section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2), (4), (5), and (8) (2020). The district court found
clear and convincing evidence supporting all of those statutory bases, and it therefore
granted the county’s petition. M.M.P. appeals.
DECISION
M.M.P. challenges the district court’s decision terminating her parental rights,
arguing that the county did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with A.A.P. The
district court was not empowered to terminate M.M.P.’s parental rights unless the county
made reasonable reunification efforts. Minn. Stat. § 260 C.301, subd. 8 (2020). When the
facts are disputed, we review for clear error the district court’s findings on the services that
the county offered, and we review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
3
determination of whether the efforts it found the country to have offered were, under the
circumstances of the case, reasonable. See In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d
315, 322–23 (Minn. App. 2015), rev . denied (Minn. July 20, 2015); In re Welfare of
Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 387 (Minn. 2008). The underlying facts are not
disputed, and we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s reasonable -efforts
conclusion.
The district court’s undisputed findings of fact support its conclusion that the
department’s efforts were reasonable. Efforts are reasonable if they are relevant to the
child’s safety, adequate to meet the family’s and the child’s needs, culturally appropriate,
available and accessible, consistent and timely, and realistic under the circumstances.
Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2020). The district court credited the testimony of the
department’s witnesses, who said they met with M.M.P. weekly to discuss her case plan
and encourage her participation in it. The district court identified the elements of M.M.P.’s
case plan, the steps the department took to help her complete it, and M.M.P.’s failure to
comply and continued drug use. The record amply supports the district court’s finding that
the county “exercised due diligence . . . to offer services that were timely, available,
relevant and culturally appropriate for the child and family, to remedy the circumstances
requiring the foster care placement and permit reunification.”
By contrast, the district court discredited M.M.P.’s competing testimony in which
she asserted that the county failed to refer her for services identified in the case plan. The
evidence warranted the district court’s multiple findings outlining M.M.P.’s failure to use
the services offered. The district court considered but rejected M.M.P.’s claims to the
4
contrary, deeming them “to be not credible, not persuasive, and unreliable because of her
erratic demeanor and inconsistent testimony.”
Substantial evidence supports the district court’s detailed findings of fact. And
based on those findings, the department’s efforts to reunite M.M.P. and A.A.P. were
reasonable under the circumstances. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to
terminate.
Affirmed.