In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. D. J., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0013

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. D. J., Parent.

Filed September 6, 2022
Affirmed
Larson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-JV-21-421

A.D.J., Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Mary M. Lynch, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County Health and Human
Services)

Stephanie Guadalupe, Minneapolis, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Tracy Smith, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Larson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Appellant mother, A.D.J., appeals the involuntary termination of her parental
rights.
1 Because mother inadequately briefed her arguments and we see no prejudicial
error upon mere inspection, we affirm.

1 Father’s parental rights, which he voluntarily terminated, are not at issue in this appeal.
2
FACTS
Mother gave birth to twins in September 2018. The twins were immediately placed
with foster parents because mother admitted to drug use during her pregnancy. Mother
regained custody in October 2018 after she entered treatment, and mother continued to
parent the twins until June 2020. In June 2020, respondent Children’s Services Department
of Hennepin County (the department) received a report that mother was walking down the
street swinging the twi ns by their arms. One twin lacked a diaper, and the other had a
soiled and wet diaper. The twins wore t-shirts, and only one twin wore shoes. The reporter
stated that mother appeared manic and under the influence of drugs. The department placed
the twins in foster care out of concern for their safety. The twins have remained in foster
care since the incident.
In February 2021, the department petitioned the district court to terminate mother’s
parental rights. During a three-day trial, the district court heard testimony from three social
workers, the guardian ad litem, mother, and mother’s witness. The social workers testified
that they created two case plans for mother, but she signed neither plan. Mother also failed
to follow the case plans or address her chemical dependency—steps that could have led to
regaining custody. One social worker testified about mother’s struggle with sobriety and
its negative effect on her ability to parent. Despite the requirement in her case plans that
mother participate in random drug testing, mother failed to submit any random urinalysis
tests. The social workers testified that mother had safe and suitable housing. However,
one social worker testified that mother’s failure to address her chemical dependency meant
mother could not be reunified with the twins in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3
The district court found the social workers’ testimonies credible and terminated
mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals.
DECISION
In her one-page informal brief, mother asserts that we should reverse the order
terminating her parental rights because she has housing and employment when she leaves
treatment, and she wants to be sober for her children. But mother fails to articulate a legal
basis for reversal or support her claims with legal argument or authority. “An assignment
of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in
appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is
obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187
N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971); see also In re Welfare of Child of J.H., 968 N.W.2d 593,
602 n.7 (Minn. App. 2021) (applying Schoepke in an appeal from a termination of parental
rights), rev. denied (Dec. 6, 2021). No prejudicial error exists when this court carefully
considers the circumstances and observes no obvious error. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, 890
N.W.2d 437, 452 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 2017).
We conclude the district court made no obvious error when it terminated mother’s
parental rights. A district court should only terminate parental rights “for grave and
weighty reasons.” In re Welfare of H.G.B., 306 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Minn. 1981). We will
affirm the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights when: (1) clear and
convincing evidence supports “at least one statutory ground for termination” ; (2) “the
county has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family”; and (3) “termination is in the
best interests of the child.” In re Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn.
4
2008). We have carefully reviewed the record and observe no obvious prejudicial error in
the district court’s application of these factors.
First, the district court based its decision to terminate mother’s parental rights on
four statutory grounds. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(2), (4), (5), (8) (2020). The
district court found that mother failed to complete her case plans, suffered from chronic
chemical dependency, and was neither able to care for nor expected to be able to care for
her children in the reasonably foreseeable future. As relevant to mother’s housing and
employment arguments, the district court acknowledged that mother had safe housing and
was employed at the time of trial. But the district court found these facts did not outweigh
her failure to complete her case plans and address her chemical dependency.
Next, the district court decided the department made reasonable efforts to reunite
the family. The district court noted that the department identified foster placements for the
twins for 18 months and prepared two case plans for mother. The department
communicated with mother, offered her referrals for service providers, and provided a
meaningful opportunity for mother to address the issues that caused the foster placement.
Last, the district court determined that terminating mother’s parental rights was in
the best interests of the children. With respect to mother’s argument regarding sobriety,
the district court acknowledged that mother loves her children and has made progress
toward sobriety. But the district court relied on the twins’ need to have a consistent
caregiver and stable environment and mother’s inability to meet the twins’ basic needs.
After inspecting the record, we observe no obvious prejudicial error.
Affirmed.