In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. J. F., II, and M. J. B., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0798

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
J. J. F., II, and M. J. B., Parents.

Filed November 28, 2022
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-JV-21-445

Gregory J. Schmidt, Gregory J. Schmidt Law Offices, P.A., Afton, Minnesota (for
appellant-mother M. J. B.)

Victoria M. Herr, Plymouth, Minnesota (for father J. J. F.)

Kevin Magnuson, Washington County Attorney, Richard D. Allen, Assistant County
Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent Washington County Community Services)

Nancy Cottrell, Stillwater, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant challenges the termination of her parental rights to two of her children.
Because the district court was within its discretion in concluding that the county made
reasonable efforts to reunite the family and termination of appellant’s parental rights is in
the children’s best interests, we affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant M.J.B. is the mother of three children. This termination-of-parental -
rights (TPR) case involves twins born in 2017 (the children). Mother had recently
graduated from in-patient chemical-dependency treatment when the children were born.
Mother participated in the treatment program as part of a child-protection matter for her
oldest child and she was, at the time the children were born, living with her sister and her
sister’s husband. The previous child-protection matter was initiated because of mother’s
methamphetamine use and domestic abuse by J.J.F, the children’s father.1
In July 2018, mother had moved out of her sister’s house with the children, and she
obtained an order for protection (OFP) against father after he “punched [her] in the side of
the face” causing her to accidentally butt the head of one of the children. Mother sought
to dismiss the OFP in late August after father agreed to enter chemical-dependency
treatment and take anger-management classes. In September, mother called the police after
father assaulted her again, which included wrapping an extension cord around her neck.
First Child-Protection Petition
In October 2018, law enforce ment searched m other’s house and found
methamphetamine and a gun. This prompted Dakota County Social Services to take the
children into custody and initiate a child-protection proceeding. The children were initially
placed in nonrelative foster care, and later placed with father’s sister. In November 2018,

1 Father’s parental rights were terminated in the same proceeding, and he separately
appealed in In re Welfare of the Children of J.J.F., II and M.J.B. , A22-0828 (Minn. App.
Nov. 28, 2022).
3
a child-protection case manager met with mother to discuss a case plan, which required
mother to complete a chemical-dependency evaluation, follow its recommendations, and
demonstrate sobriety through random drug testing. In early January 2019, when the
children were placed with father’s sister, mother had not submitted to random drug tests
and a hair drug test as required in her agreed -upon case plan. Dakota County also had
difficulty arranging a consistent visitation schedule for mother and, when visitation was
arranged, mother was consistently late.
Mother entered residential outpatient chemical-dependency treatment in May 2019.
After her successful discharge from this program in June, mother relapsed, missed a court
hearing, and tested positive for alcohol. In August, mother was admitted to a 13-month
residential treatment program at Minnesota Adult & Teen Challenge and completed an
additional comprehensive chemical assessment. This program allowed visitation with the
children, which mother utilized.
In September 2019, as the children neared one year of being placed away from
mother, Dakota County petitioned to transfer sole legal and sole physical custody of the
children to father. With mother’s agreement, the district court transferred custody to father
in October 2019. The district court terminated the child-protection proceeding, and the
children began living with father at their grandfather’s house.
Second Child-Protection Petition
In October 2020, father’s sister began to have concerns about father’s behavior and
its effect on the children. In the first quarter of 2021, father stopped regularly living at
grandfather’s house and at least once forgot to pick the children up from daycare. In April
4
2021, at father’s request following his arrest, the children returned to his sister’s full-time
care. The children continued to live with the sister, and the placement became official in
July 2021, when Washington County Community Services initiated a second
child-protection proceeding.
After initiating the child-protection proceeding, Washington County prepared and
updated case plans for mother. In December 2021, after a scheduled pretrial hearing, the
district court adjudicated the children in need of protection or services.
In February 2021, mother was sentenced to 100 months’ imprisonment for
first-degree possession of a controlled substance, based on the evidence obtained in the
October 2018 search of her house. She remained incarcerated at the time of the TPR trial
and is scheduled to be released in 2026.
Washington County petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents in
September 2021, and the district court conducted a five-day TPR trial between March and
May 2022. In June, the district court issued its order terminating mother’s and father’s
parental rights to the children pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(2) (parental
neglect), (4) (palpable unfitness), (5) (failure to correct conditions leading to placement),
(8) (neglected and in foster care) (2020). Mother and father appealed separately. This is
mother’s appeal.
DECISION
“[O]n appeal from a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights, we will
review the district court’s findings of the underlying or basic facts for clear error, but we
review its determination of whether a particular statutory basis for involuntarily
5
terminating parental rights is present for an abuse of discretion.” In re Welfare of Children
of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). “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 and termination is in the best
interests of the child, provided that the county has made reasonable efforts to reunite the
family.” In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008) (citations
omitted).
I. Reasonable Efforts
When the district court terminates parental rights, it “shall make findings and
conclusions as to the provision of reasonable efforts.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2020).
“[P]rovision of reasonable efforts must be evaluated by the court in every case.” In re
Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d 886, 892 (Minn. 1996). However, a detailed analysis of the
factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) is not always required. J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at
904. “[W]hat constitutes reasonable efforts depends on the facts of each case.” In re
Welfare of Child of J.H., 968 N.W.2d 593, 601 (Minn. App. 2021) (quotation omitted), rev.
denied (Minn. Dec. 6, 2021). “[A]n agency fails to make reasonable efforts when it fails
to prepare a case plan with an incarcerated parent or otherwise identify any potentially
suitable programming available to an incarcerated parent.” In re Welfare of Children of
A.D.B., 970 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn. App. 2022) (citing In re Welfare of A.R.B., 906
N.W.2d 894, 900 (Minn. App. 2018)).
We review the district court’s determination that the county has made reasonable
efforts to reunite the family for an abuse of discretion. See In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D.,
6
865 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Minn. App. 2015) (concluding that the district court’s
“reasonable-efforts finding was not an abuse of discretion”), rev. denied (Minn. July 20,
2015). “A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are
unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against
logic and the facts on record.” Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022)
(quoting Bender v. Bernhard, 971 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022)).
Mother argues that Washington County “failed to provide reasonable efforts by
failing to provide and implement an out of home placement plan” for her. We are not
persuaded.
Most critically, the record supports the district court’s determination that
Washington County made reasonable efforts to reunite the family and, as part of those
reasonable efforts, implemented multiple case plans with mother. When Washington
County initiated the second child- protection matter, the assigned child-protection case
manager “reached out to [mother’s] case manager through the prison, . . . and arranged to
have a phone call with [mother].” The child-protection case manager reviewed the case
plan with mother telephonically because COVID-related prison restrictions prevented
in-person visits. And the child-protection case manager told mother she could contact her
“if she had any questions or changes.” During this phone call, mother indicated that she
was familiar with case plans from her previous child-protection matters. The child-
protection case manager signed every case plan, as did mother after the child-protection
case manager provided them to mother through her prison case manager.
7
Mother’s case plan was updated in November 2021 and February 2022, and each
time the child-protection case manager provided mother a copy through her prison case
manager and “offered her [at] any point to contact [the child-protection case manager] if
she had questions about it.” The child-protection case manager also asked mother if there
was any programming available to her in prison and learned that the usual programming
was not being offered because of COVID.
Due to COVID-related prison restrictions, mother’s only option for visits with the
children was via video, which the child-protection case manager helped arrange. The
child-protection case manager helped prepare mother and the children for video visits and
followed up with mother after the visits. When COVID restrictions disrupted what had
been regular video visits, the child- protection case manager worked with the prison to
reinstitute visits.
Thus, contrary to mother’s argument, the present case is easily distinguishable from
A.R.B. and A.D.B, where this court reversed termination of a parent’s rights because the
responsible agency provided no written case plan and made no efforts to identify resources
to remedy the relevant conditions. See A.R.B., 906 N.W.2d at 900; see also A.D.B., 970
N.W.2d at 732, 734.
Moreover, mother misunderstands what must be included in the written case plan,
which is a required part of the responsible agency’s reasonable efforts. “Case plan” is
statutorily defined as “any plan for the delivery of services to a child and parent or guardian,
or, when reunification is not required, the child alone.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 3
(2020). In the termination-of-parental-rights context, “The purpose of a case plan is to give
8
parents written guidelines for correcting the conditions resulting in child protection
proceedings.” A.D.B., 970 N.W.2d at 731. Here, that purpose was met.
Mother’s case plans identified two key goals for mother: demonstrat e an ability to
safely and consistently protect the children from harm and provide for the children, and put
the children’s needs ahead of her own. To accomplish these, mother had to demonstrate
sobriety and stability and participate in mental health, chemical health, and parenting skills
programming as they were available. Thus, the case plans provided “written guidelines for
correcting the conditions resulting in [the] child protection proceeding[].” Id.
II. Best Interests
Once a statutory basis for terminating parental rights has been met (which is not
contested by mother), “the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.”
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7 (2020). We review a district court’s best-interests
determination for an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d
648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018). “In determining a child’s best interests, the district court
must balance ‘(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the
parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest
of the child.’” J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 604 (quoting A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d at 657); see also
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring same). “[D]etermination of a child’s best
interests ‘is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record,’
and . . . ‘an appellate court’s combing through the record to determine best interests is
inappropriate because it involves credibility determinations.’” In re Welfare of Child of
9
D.L.D., 771 N.W.2d 538, 546 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting In re Tanghe, 672 N.W.2d 623,
625 (Minn. App. 2003)).
The district court made extensive factual findings regarding the children’s mental,
emotional, and physical health, educational and physical needs, and their parents’s
“consistent pattern of substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health concerns, all
resulting in instability to [the children’s] detriment.” It noted that “generally children have
an interest in preserving the parent/child relationship,” and the children, who were four
years old at the time of trial, were too young to form a distinct preference. With respect to
mother, the district court found that she had been the children’s “day to day caregiver for
slightly less than the first year of their lives.” In that year, she failed to take advantage of
services offered to her, resumed an abusive relationship with father, and ultimately had the
children removed from her care after methamphetamine and a gun were found in the house
with the children. The district court found that, during the children’s second and third year
of life, mother “failed to make use of offered reasonable efforts and had inconsistent
contact with her children,” leading to a voluntary transfer of physical and legal custody to
father. Finally, the district court noted that mother is currently incarcerated but “[m]ore
importantly . . . look[ed] at the brief time she has actually parented her children” and her
inability to maintain a safe and stable home when she was not incarcerated. In balancing
the interests of mother and the children, the district court ultimately determined that, “The
children’s competing interests in the need [for] a safe and stable life outweighs any
competing interests of the parents.”
10
Mother does not argue that these findings are erroneous. Rather, she offers an
alternative set of facts, from her own testimony, emphasizing the efforts she did make to
maintain a relationship with the children. However, the guardian ad litem and the
child-protection case manager, whom the district court found credible, testified that
terminating mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests and provided
reasons for their opinions. Thus, mother’s argument is essentially a request for us to
reweigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, which is not our role. See D.L.D.,
771 N.W.2d at 546; see also In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22
(Minn. 2021) (emphasizing that the clear-error standard does not permit reweighing of
evidence); In re Welfare of Child of J.H., 968 N.W.2d 593, 601 n.6 (Minn. App. 2021)
(applying Kenney in a juvenile-protection appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 6, 2021).
Mother also argues that the basis for the guardian ad litem’s testimony—that
termination of mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest—is “woefully
weak” because of insufficient interviews during her investigation and her purported
misunderstanding of the best-interests standard. The district court found the guardian ad
litem’s testimony “credible in all respects,” and mother’s argument again amounts to a n
impermissible request for this court to reweigh the credibility of witnesses. See D.L.D.,
771 N.W.2d at 546; see also Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 221-22; J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 601 n.6.
Moreover, the guardian ad litem testified that she understood the best-interests standard,
and nothing in the record suggests otherwise.
In sum, mother does little more than disagree with the district court’s credibility
determinations and weighing of the required factors. The district court balanced the
11
interests of the children and parents as it is required to do, determined that terminating
mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests, and the record supports this
conclusion.
Thus, the district court acted within its discretion to terminate mother’s parental
rights.2
Affirmed.

2 Mother also argues that the district court erred by adopting Washington County’s
proposed findings verbatim. The supreme court has expressed a “preference . . . ‘for a
court to independently develop its own findings,’” but “ha[s] declined to adopt a blanket
prohibition on” adoption verbatim of proposed findings. In re Children of T.A.A., 702
N.W.2d 703, 707 n.2 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Pederson v. State, 649 N.W.2d 161, 163
(Minn. 2002)). And the record shows that the district court made changes, albeit minor,
throughout the proposed findings before adopting them.