In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. G. and A. E., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0614

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. G. and A. E., Parents.

Filed November 21, 2022
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Kandiyohi County District Court
File No. 34-JV-22-10

Douglas D. Kluver, Kluver Law Office and Mediation Center, P.L.L.C., Montevideo,
Minnesota (for appellant A. E.)

Shane D. Baker, Kandiyohi County Attorney, Julianna F. Passe, Assistant County
Attorney, Willmar, Minnesota (for respondent Kandiyohi County Health and Human
Services)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.*
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellant-father challenges a district court order terminating his parental rights to
his three minor children. Because the record supports the district court’s determination
that a statutory ground for termination exists, the county made reasonable efforts to reunify
the family, and termination is in the child ren’s best interests, we affirm.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
Appellant A.E. is the biological father of three children central to this proceeding :
Child 1, born in January 2017; Child 2, born in January 2018; and Child 3, born in May
2019. The children’s biological mother S.G. and father never married. Mother and father
have a fourth child, born in December 2020, who is not subject to this matter.
In January 2018, Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services (the county) was
notified that Child 2 tested positive for THC in his meconium at birth.1 In October 2018,
the county received further allegations that the children were exposed to marijuana use and
unsanitary home conditions because of a flea infestation . In light of these reports, the
county assessed the family and pursued case management .2 The county offered mother
and father voluntary services including drug testing, parent support outreach, drop-in visits,
gas vouchers, transportation to medical appointments , and a referral to Nurse Family
Partnership. Father participated in drug testing on only one occasion; he tested positive for
THC. Father refused to submit to more drug testing claiming that he was already regularly
testing to comply with the terms of his probation. But probation reported to the county that
father had not submitted to drug testing for about one year.

1 THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is a compound obtained from cannabis that is the primary
intoxicant in marijuana. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1803
(5th ed. 2018).
2 The county’s response to reports of abuse or neglect about the family gradually escalated.
The county first conducted family assessments and case management with provision of
voluntary services . When voluntary services failed, the county pursued a traditional
investigation that prompted the filing of a petition alleging the children were in need of
protection or services. The county ultimately petitioned to terminate parental rights. As
of January 2022, the county had received 33 total reports of abuse or neglect about the
family.
3
Children in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) Case
In May 2019, mother gave birth to Child 3 whose meconium also tested positive for
THC. The county received additional reports of suspected drug use and neglect, prompting
the county to pursue a traditional investigation . The county petitioned in district court
alleging that the children were in need of protection or services. On September 17, 2019,
the county removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care because of
concerns about mother ’s and father’s drug use, erratic behaviors, and conditions of the
home. Upon health assessment, the county discovered that hair follicle testing on all the
children tested positive for exposure to methamphetamine. A psychologist diagnosed
Child 1 with post -traumatic stress disorder and a deprivation and maltreatment disorder .
Child 2 was diagnosed with a deprivation and maltreatment disorder. At the time of the
children’s removal from the home, father was incarcerated following a conviction for
driving while intoxicated . The county did not consider him a placement option. Father
was later released.
The county provided services to mother and father. Particular to father, the county
provided drug testing, a referral for a chemical use assessment, safety planning, and a
referral to individual therapy. Father’s safety plan specified that if he were to rela pse and
use drugs, he must go back to chemical dependenc y treatment. Father also participated in
a parenting assessment conducted by a psychologist in March 2020 to identify
psychological issues that would impact father’s parenting. The psychologist diagnosed
father with major depressive disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and a substance use
disorder related to marijuana and alcohol. The psychologist recommended that father
4
maintain sobriety for a year, remain law abiding, submit to drug testing and chemical
dependency treatment, pursue individual therapy, and participate in supervised visitation
and parenting classes. Father attended sessions with a therapist to manage his anxiety and
stress related to the CHIPS case until April 2021.
Over time, father and mother demonstrated sobriety, completed safety meetings,
attended therapy appointments, and demonstrated in- home parenting skills. After a
successful period of trial home visits, the children were reunited with father and mother
and the district court closed the court file in June 2021.
Post-CHIPS Case
In November 2021, father’s relationship with mother deteriorated and he left
mother’s home. Father later admitted to using methamphetamine on at least one occasion
and did not seek treatment afterward, characterizing his drug use as a single “lapse.”
Despite not living with the family, father established a routine of stopping at mother’s home
to clean and check on the children.
In December 2021, the county received reports that mother was using
methamphetamine, marijuana, and pain medication . And in January 2022, law
enforcement conducted a “trash pull” at mother’s home and discovered methamphetamine
paraphernalia. Officers exe cuted a search warrant on the property and discovered drug
paraphernalia, including a marijuana pipe in mother’s bedroom near the youngest child and
in plain view . At the time, father was inside mother’s home sleeping on the couch with
two of the children. The officers arrested mother and father and removed the children from
5
the home.3 Prior to foster care placement, the county again evaluated the children’s health.
Hair follicle test ing again revealed that all three children tested positive for
methamphetamine exposure; Child 3 was fighting pneumonia; Child 2 had an ear infection;
and finally, Child 2 and Child 3 both had iron deficiencies .
Following his arrest, father submitted to a drug test that was positive for THC.
While in jail, f ather reported to the county that he had last used methamphetamine six
months before. The county asked father to submit to a hair follicle test to confirm his
account.4 But father shaved his head, making it impossible for the county to complete the
test. The county created an out-of-home placement plan for father with goals that included
not possessing or using mood altering substances, complying with drug testing, completing
a chemical use assessment, obtaining safe and stable housing, and obtaining or maintaining
employment. The county provided father a chemical use assessment, drug testing, gas
vouchers, and supervised visits with the children.
Petition to Terminate Parental Rights (TPR)
On January 18, 2022, the county petitioned the district court to involuntarily
terminate the parental rights of mother and father to the children. The county alleged two
statutory grounds to support termination: (1) palpable unfitness to parent; and (2) failure to
correct the conditions that led to the children’s out -of-home placement. See Minn. Stat.

3 The state later dis missed father’s criminal charges for possession of drug paraphernalia
from his arrest on January 13.
4 At trial, the county’s social worker testified that a hair follicle test would reveal substance
abuse within three months of testing. If father’s report that he last used methamphetamine
six months prior was accurate, the result of his test would have been negative.
6
§ 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), (5) (2020). In February 2022, mother voluntarily terminated
her parental rights to the children.
TPR Trial and District Court Order Terminating Father’s Parental Rights
In March 2022, the district court held a three-day court trial on the petition to
terminate father’s parental rights . The district court heard testimony from father, the
county’s social worker, the county’s child protection specialist, the county’s case manager,
a clinical social worker, the officer that executed the January 13 search warrant on mother’s
home, a family therapist, the children’s psychologist, father’s former therapist, the
psychologist who performed father’s parenting assessment, two of father’s drug and
alcohol counselors at Divine Hope Counseling, the guardian ad litem (the GAL), and
mother.
At trial, father testified that he considered himself a recovering addict, with alcohol
and marijuana as his substances of choice. Before his arrest on January 13, father explained
that he was at mother’s home, checking on the children and the house, because mother t old
him that the county was involved with the children again and father knew mother had been
using drugs. Father testified that when he spoke with mother on January 13, he did not see
any drug paraphernalia. Father admitted that he shaved his head to a void completing the
county’s hair follicle test because of his “lapse” in November 2021 when he used
methamphetamine. He acknowledged that when the district court closed the first child
protection case , he agreed to a safety plan which required him to att end chemical
dependency treatment after drug use . But he explained that he did not go to treatment
because it was a singular “lapse” or “slip,” rather than a “relapse.”
7
Father also testified t hat he considered himself homeless and without a permanent
address. At the time of trial, father was residing with the children’s grandmother but stated
that he could not remain there . If the children were returned to him, father testified he
planned to make an arrangement with mother’s landlord to take over the lease on her home,
but was having trouble determining if he qualified for the program t hat allowed mother to
secure a rental subsidy voucher to afford the lease.5 Father stated the longest perio d of
employment he held lasted one year and past criminal convictions made it difficult for him
to find a job. Father was terminated from his employment following his arrest on January
13. Father testified that he obtained a part -time job two weeks before trial and planned to
start another f ull-time job s oon after trial. Father also detailed that he started seeing a
therapist and had begun an outpatient alcohol and drug relapse prevention program one
month before trial. He also reported he was taking parenting classes at Hope Pregnancy
Center and communicating with his AA sponsor. Father stated he has never had full
custody of the children and had trouble disciplining them but was working on improving.
The county’s child protection specialist testified that, in 2019, father told her he
would “never stop doing marijuana.” The county’s case manager testified about father’s
chemical dependenc y treatment history . In 2016, father attended treatment , but left the
program against staff advice. In 2017, father attempted treatment again and also left the
program against staff advice. In 2020, father completed a thirty-day treatment and halfway

5 The case manager for the county testified that father is ineligible for the voucher because
he does not yet qualify for the program. The GAL testified that she spoke with mother’s
landlord, and her resulting impression was that father would be unable to live in mother’s
home in the future.
8
house program , later followed by outpatient programming at Divi ne Hope Counseling
Center. In June 2021, father attended Divine Hope’s relapse prevention treatment. The
case manager noted that during the CHIPS case in 2019, father admitted to marijuana use
and failed to appear for drug tests. The case manager stated that father’s recent visits with
the children were described as chaotic because the children did not always listen to him.
She also testified that, as of the last day of trial, the children had been placed outside the
home for a total of 666 days.
The ps ychologist who conducted father’s parenting assessment in March 2020
testified that he believed the evaluation was still valid, including the recommendation that
father needed one year of sobriety, based on father’s history of use and inability to provide
for his children. The psychologist stated that if father had a “slip” or relapse, it would be
appropriate to seek treatment to address it and remarked that father’s antisocial behavior
could lead to views about himself that were not realistic given the circumstances.
A drug and alcohol counselor at Divine Hope Counseling Center , who completed
father’s comprehensive substance use assessment in February 2022, testified that father
told her he could not remember the last time that he used methamphetamine, s o father and
the counselor agreed on listing March or April 2021 as the date of last use. Another
counselor at Divine Hope testified that father was participating in a treatment program at
the time of trial and had a very good likelihood of success. The counselor stated that a
“lapse” or “slip” and a relapse are the same thing but understanding a relapse as a “lapse”
can help individuals move forward in recovery rather than give up. The counselor stated
she believed that it would be possible for father t o relapse and continue working toward
9
sobriety without going to treatment when there is a support network available, and he seeks
the help he needs.
The GAL testified that the children expected to return to their father’s care, but were
too young to fully understand their safety, wishes, and trauma experiences. The GAL
stated that the children have significant physical, mental health, and developmental needs
that father could not meet and supported the county’s petition to terminate father’s parental
rights. Mother testified that, after the CHIPS file was closed in June 2021, father took over
most of the parenting duties for the children. After father moved out of mother’s home in
November 2021, he would return to see the children, bring food, and transport them to
appointments or school.
Following the trial, the district court issued its written findings, conclusions of law
and order, terminating father’s parental rights to the children. The district court determined
that the county proved the existence of both statutory grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The district court
also found that termination of father’s parental rights was in the best interests of all three
children.
Father appeals.
DECISION
“Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” In re Welfare
of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990) . A district court may involuntarily
terminate a parent’s parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes: (1) at
least one statutory basis for terminating parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
10
1(b) (2020), exists; (2) the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family; and
(3) termination is in the child’s best interests. In re Child. of T.A.A., 702 N.W.2d 703, 708
(Minn. 2005). We review the district court’s determinations of whether a statutory ground
for termination exists and whether termination is in the child’s best interests 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).
We review underlying findings of fact for clear error. Id. This court gives
“considerable deference” to the district court’s discretionary decision to terminate parental
rights, but we “closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it
was clear and convincing.” In re Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn.
2008). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of
the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” In re Welfare of
Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012). We will not conclude a factfinder
clearly erred “unless, on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenn ey, 963 N.W.2d 214,
221 (Minn. 2021).
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that at least one
statutory ground existed to support termination of father’s parental rights.

Father argues that the district court abused its discretion w hen it terminated his
parental rights on the bases that he was palpably unfit to parent and that reasonable efforts
failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s out-of-home placement. See Minn.
11
Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), (5). A district court may terminate parental rig hts if clear
and convincing evidence shows:
a parent is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child
relationship because of a consistent pattern of specific conduct
before the child or of specific conditions directly relating to the
parent and child relationship either of which are determined by
the court to be of a duration or nature that renders the parent
unable, for the reasonably foreseeable future, to care
appropriately for the ongoing physical, mental, or emotional
needs of the child.

Id., subd. 1(b)(4). Under this statutory basis, the county must prove a “consistent pattern
of specific conduct or specific conditions existing at the time of the hearing that appear will
continue for a prolonged, indefinite period and that are permanently det rimental to the
welfare of the child.” In re Child. of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656, 661 (Minn. 2008) (quotation
omitted).
Father contends that the district court mainly based its conclusion that father was
palpably unfit to parent on father’s inability to prove sobriety. We disagree. Before
reaching its conclusion that father was palpably unfit, t he district court found that father
had not established (1) the long-term sobriety necessary to parent the children; (2) stability
in housing or employment; and (3) any ability to independently parent his young children
with significant special needs. Each of these findings is supported by the record.
a. Sobriety
Father argues the district court’s emphasis on long- term sobriety is misplaced and
the only relevant question before the court was whether father’s substance abuse was under
control at the time of the trial . Indeed, when reviewing a termination order, “we address
12
conditions at the time of the termination hearing and whether they are expected to continue
for the foreseeable future.” J.H. , 968 N.W.2d at 603 (quoting In re Welfare of Chosa, 290
N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980) ). Even so, father mischaracterizes the scope of the district
court’s examination.
The district court must discern whether a “consistent patter n of specific conduct”
exists and may consider past patterns of behavior to determine whether they are likely to
continue. T.R., 750 N.W.2d at 661; see also In re Welfare of J.D.L., 522 N.W.2d 364, 367
(Minn. App. 1994) (finding a specific pattern of inadequate parenting skills) . We “rel[y]
not primarily on past history, but to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the
parent’s inability to care for his or her child.” In re Welfare of A.D., 535 N.W.2d 643, 649
(Minn. 1995). A parent’s history on issues such as substance abuse or instability is not
ignored because it helps explain whether a present condition or pattern exists that renders
the parent unable to care for his children. See J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 598- 99 (terminating a
father’s parental rights despite recent progress in chemical dependency treatment and
examining past failed attempts at treatment, testing positive for controlled substances, and
declining mental health services).
The district court’s finding that father had not shown long- term sobriety necessary
to parent is well -supported by the record. The district court properly acknowledged
father’s recent participation in outpatient treatment and favorable prognosis . The district
court also noted it was father’s fifth treatment program in six years , consistent with the
county’s summary of father’s treatment history at trial. In considering father’s
characterization of his methamphetamine use as a “lapse,” the district court heard
13
testimony from father’s drug and alcohol counselor and the psychologist who performed
father’s parenting assessment. The district court recognized father’s drug a nd alcohol
counselor’s perspective that understanding a relapse to be a “lapse” may help avoid
hopelessness in recovery. B ut the district court credited the psychologist’s view that
father’s antisocial behavior can manifest as an unrealistic view of himself and concluded
that father’s refusal to acknowledge his relapse demonstrated he did not fully understand
the seriousness of “even a one-time use.”
The county presented clear and convincing evidence that father had a consistent
pattern of noncompliance wi th drug testing, dishonesty about drug use , and inability to
maintain sobriety. He refused to participate in drug testing in 2018 after falsely claiming
he was undergoing drug testing for probation and fail ing to appear for testing in 2019.
Father thwarted the county’s request that he participate in a hair follicle test in January
2022 by shaving his head. Father gave inconsistent accounts as to when he last used
methamphetamine. In January 2022, father reported to the county that he last used six
months prior; in February 2022, he reported to his drug and alcohol counselor that he could
not remember the last time he used the drug so they agreed on a date of March or April
2021. A nd at trial , he testified to a single “lapse” in November 2021.6 Despite father’s
existing parenting assessment recommendation to remain sober for a year and his safety
plan that mandated that he remain sober and attend treatment if he used again , father

6 Notably, “six months prior” to January 2022 was during a period where father was
residing in mother’s home and caring for the children.
14
continued to use marijuana and methamphetamine . He did not seek treatment until one
month before trial.
“[S]ubstance or alcohol use alone does not render a parent palpably unfit; rather, the
county must demonstrate that the parent’s substance or alcohol use is of a nature or duration
that renders the parent unable . . . to care appropriately for the child’s ongoing needs.”
T.R., 750 N.W.2d at 663. Citing T.R., father challenges the district cour t’s determination
that he is a palpably unfit parent, arguing that the district court did not find a causal
connection between his substance abuse and his inability to care for his children. We reject
this argument. First, the district court did not rely on father’s substance abuse alone to rule
father to be a palpably unfit parent. Thus, even if father is correct, that fact would not
undermine the district court’s determination. Second, the record overwhelmingly supports
the district court’s findings t hat each parent abused chemicals. The district court credited
the testimony of the children’s psychologist that chemical abuse impairs a parent’s capacity
to provide a safe, stable, and loving home. Indeed, officers discovered drug paraphernalia
in the home and the children tested positive for exposure to methamphetamine. Thus, this
record supports the inference of the district court that father’s substance abuse impaired his
ability to parent the children. Third, given the time father spent with the children at
mother’s home, father’s substance abuse may have (a) caused direct damage to the
children’s well-being; or (b) indirectly damaged their well-being by leaving the children in
mother’s care when he knew she had relapsed. Neither option undermines the district
court’s determination that father is a palpably unfit parent , especially when that
determination was not explicitly based on father’s substance abuse.
15
As a result, the district court’s finding that father had not shown long-term sobriety
necessary to parent the children is not clearly erroneous. The county proved a “consistent
pattern of specific conduct” related to father’s drug use that “renders [father] unable . . . to
care appropriately for the ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs of the child[ren].”
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4).
b. Housing and Employment
The district court’s finding that father did not establish housing stability is also
supported by the record. At trial, father testified that he considered himself homeless, he
could not stay in his current housing with the children’s grandmother, and he did not know
if he could secure a lease on mother’s home. More testimony from the county and the GAL
revealed that father may be ineligible for the program mother had used to obtain a housing
voucher for the lease and that mother’s landlord would not allow father to live in the home.
The record supports the district court’s finding that father had not shown
employment stability. In a separate factual finding, the district court determined that father
was not currently employed, which is clearly erroneous given father’s testimony that he
obtained a part -time job two weeks before trial. Even so, the district court’s ultimate
finding on instability in father’s employment is supported by father’s testimony that the
longest time he had maintained a job consistently was for one year, he lost his previous job
following his arrest in January 2022, and that he had experienced difficulty throughout his
life obtaining jobs because of his criminal record. The district court found that , by trial,
father had been incarcerated for a total of 16 of his 44 years; more than one -third of his
16
life. That father was employed part -time at the time of the trial does not show he can
maintain employment given his pattern of employment instability and criminal history.
c. Ability to Independently Parent
Finally, the record supports the district court’s finding that father did not
demonstrate an ability to independently parent his children. Though mother testified that
father took on many parenting duties in June 2021 and continued to care for the children
during visits to mother’s home after the couple’s relationship deteriorated, father never had
sole custody of the children. Father testified that he had trouble disciplining the children
and was working to improve that. The county case manager testified that father’s recent
supervised visits with the children were chaotic because the children did not always listen
to him. When viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the district court’s finding, we
are not left wit h a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed .”
Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 221.
In sum, given the record before us, the district court did not abuse its discretion
ruling father to be a palpably unfit parent .7 The county showed by clear and convincing
evidence a “consistent pattern of specific conduct” related to father’s inability to maintain
sobriety and “specific conditions existing at the time of the hearing” related to housing,
employment, and parenting i nability that “appear will continue for a prolonged, indefinite

7 Because we affirm the existence of this statutory ground to terminate parental rights , we
need not address whether the district court abused its discretion by also concluding that
another statutory basis to terminate parental rights existed under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301,
subd. 1(b). See S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 385 (holding at least one statutory basis must be
proven to support termination of parental rights).
17
period” and are “permanently detrimental to the welfare of the child[ren].” T.R., 750
N.W.2d at 661.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the county
made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.

To terminate parental rights, the district court must analyze whether a county made
reasonable efforts to reunite the parent with the child. Id. at 664. Reasonable efforts are
“services that go beyond mere matters of form so as to include real genuine assistance.” In
re Welfare of Child. of S.W., 727 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted),
rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2007). Appellate courts review a district court’s determination
about whether a county’s efforts were reasonable for an abuse of discretion. See In re
Child. of A.D.B., 970 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn. App. 2022) ; In re Welfare of Child of
D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015) ; see
also In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 660 (Minn. App. 2018) (stating
that “[w]hen statutes explicitly entrust the district court to determine what is appropriate,
we review for an abuse of discretion”).
To determine whether efforts were reasonable, the district court must consider
whether the services provided to the family 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). The district court
must also evaluate how long the county was involved with the family and the quality of
18
effort given. In re Welfare of H.K., 455 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied
(Minn. July 6, 1990).
The district court determined that the services offered by the county were
“reasonable, appropriate, and relevant to the safety and protection of the children, adequate
to meet the needs of the children and the family, culturally appropriate, and realistic under
the circumstances.” Though the district court did not specifically state that the county’s
services were consistent and timely, the district court did find t hat the county had been
working with the family since October 2018. The district court noted the county
investigated or provided services for that entire time, interrupted only by the brief period
between the close of the CHIPS case in June 2021 and the TPR petition’s filing in January
2022.
The district court found the county’s services to reunify the family during the CHIPS
case included: chemical dependency and child welfare case management, family
assessment, referral to Nurse Family Partnership, transportation, gas vouchers, safety
meetings, daycare assistance, drug testing, mental health screening for the children, WIC
appointments, individual therapy, in- home parenting ski lls training, diagnostic
assessments, chemical dependency treatment, family assessment , mental health services ,
and connection to a public health nurse. After January 2022, the county’s services
included: child protection investigation, referral to Help M e Grow, hair follicle test ing for
the children, drug testing for father, and supervised visitation.
Father argues that the county’s efforts were mainly targeted toward efforts to reunify
mother with the children because she was the custodial parent and father was never viewed
19
as a permanency option for the children. Mother was the custodial parent at the time of
removal and the county concedes that many services were directed at mother. That said,
the record supports t he district court’s reasonable effort findings. Testimony at trial from
the county’s case manager showed that father received services directly related to his needs
as a self -described recovering addict during the duration of the CHIPS case because he
engaged in chemical dependenc y treatment, individual therapy, drug testing, transportation
assistance, and safety planning meetings. Relevant to father’s needs to maintain sobriety
and show independent parenting skills, the county also provided father drug t esting, a
chemical assessment, and supervised visitation starting in January 2022.
Taken together, clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the district
court’s findings on what services were provided to father, and father has not shown that
the district court abused its discretion by ruling the county made reasonable efforts to
reunite father with the children.
III. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it is in the
best interests of the children to terminate parental r ights.

Even when a statutory basis for termination exists, the best interests of the children
are the “paramount consideration” in a termination of parental rights proceeding. Minn.
Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2020); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.001, subd. 2(a) (2020). The
district court must make specific findings that evaluate (1) the child’s interests in
preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interests in preserving the parent-
child relationship; and (3) any competing interests of the child. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P.
58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring findings on these factors when a district court terminates rights
20
to a non- Indian child) ; see also In re Welfare of Child . of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 905
(Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012) . We review a district court’s best -
interests determination for an abuse of discretion. J.H. , 968 N.W.2d at 600.
The district court made specific findings on each of the best -interest factors. The
district court observed that father and the children have significant parent -child bonds ,
finding that the children love and care for father while he similarly loves and cares for
them. The district court noted that the children expressed a wish to return to father’s care ,
but it determined the children were too young to make an informed decision on their long-
term permanency. The district court also found the children have a “strong competing
interest” to be in the care of a safe, stable, and sober caregiver .
Father argues that the district court failed to point to any specific evidence that father
was not safe, stable, or sober while caring for his children. We disagree with father ; the
record supports this finding. The children’s psychologist testified that chemical use
impairs a parent’s functional capacity to provide a safe, loving, and stable home. At the
time of trial, f ather could not establish long-term sobriety, based on his treatment history,
noncompliance with drug testing, and conflicting reports about drug use. The district court
acknowledged that father’s characterization of his November 2021 methamphetamine use
as a “lapse” could be a coping strategy to avoid hopelessness in recovery, but it also
demonstrated he did not appreciate the seriousness of using methamphetamine. He also
did not show stability in employment or housing to provide for the children’s safety a nd
care. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined
termination of father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
21
Because we affirm the district court’s conclusion that father is palpably unfit to be
a party to the parent-child relationship based on clear and convincing evidence , the county
made reasonable efforts to reunify the family , and termination is in the children’s best
interests, we affirm the district court’s order terminating father’s parental rights.
Affirmed.