In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. M. and A. M., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-1224

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
P. M. and A. M., Parents.

Filed January 17, 2023
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Mower County District Court
File No. 50-JV-21-1398

Daniel T. Donnelly, Donnelly Law Office, Austin, Minnesota (for appellant-mother
P.M.)

Paul Spyhalski, Austin, Minnesota (for respondent-father A.M.)

Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Aaron Jones, Assistant County Attorney,
Austin, Minnesota (for respondent Mower County Health and Human Services)

Todd Schoonover, Hollandale, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Police arrested appellant mother for drug dealing and found drugs in her home with
her children present after respondent Mower County Health and Human Services received
a report that the children were left alone and not attending school. The county placed the
children in foster care and petitioned the court to transfer permanent custody to the
children’s aunt and uncle. Mother challenges the district court’s order granting the petition.
2
Because we determine that mother forfeited all arguments not adequately briefed , and
because even on the merits we see no error in the trial court’s custody-transfer order, we
affirm.
FACTS
Mother (P.M.) and father (A.M.) ended their romantic relationship after father went
to Texas in May 2019. Father returned to Minnesota in July when he heard that mother was
not caring for their three children and had left them with her friend. Father found the
children in mother’s friend’s home with none of their personal possessions. He took the
children to Texas and cared for them until August 2019, when mother assured him that she
was receiving county assistance to secure housing and had become employed in Minnesota.
Father brought two of the children back to Minnesota and left them in mother’s care, but
he retrieved them in December 2019 after he learned that mother had again left them in
someone else’s care. He cared for them in Texas without mother for one year.
Mother went to Texas in December 2020. She had not seen the children for a year
and did not communicate with them regularly. Father was not present, and mother took the
two youngest children (then ages seven and four) and brought them back to Minnesota.
She left the oldest child in Texas.
A month later, Mower County Health and Human Services received a report in
January 2021 alleging that the children were alone in mother’s home and not attending
school. Police arrested mother the next day on a drug-sale charge. When police entered
mother’s apartment, they found the children and methamphetamine inside. The state
3
charged mother with additional felonies. County child-protection workers removed the two
children from the home, and mother agreed they needed protective services.
Mother and a county child-protection caseworker developed a case plan that
included mother’s abstaining from drugs, completing a chemical-dependency assessment,
attending parenting classes, securing safe and stable housing, and completing a mental-
health evaluation. Mother entered treatment in March 2021 but left three days later. Police
arrested her on outstanding criminal charges. The county caseworker did not hear from
mother from July to September 2021.
Mother entered residential chemical-dependency treatment in September 2021. The
county petitioned the district court to transfer permanent custody of the two children to
their aunt and uncle (father’s sister and her husband), who lived in Texas. The case
proceeded to a hearing on the custody-transfer petition in October 2021.
Mother and father both testified at the October hearing , as did the children’s
guardian ad litem, mother’s caseworker, and the children’s aunt. Father waived his rights
and agreed to the custody transfer. The testimony revealed that the children had been placed
in foster care after the events of January 2021 and that they had supervised visits with
mother only until May 2021, after which they had only sporadic contact with her until she
entered treatment the month before the hearing. After mother entered treatment, the
children spoke with her daily and had twice- weekly video calls. Mother testified that she
was planning to leave the treatment program the following month, which is substantially
earlier than the program’s typical parameters, and she revealed that she lacked a plan for
4
her housing. She said that she was scheduled to be interviewed to live in sober housing
where the children could visit.
The children’s guardian ad litem testified that both children had negative reactions
after they interacted with mother, and he testified that he did not think it was in the best
interests of the children to return to her care soon. The county caseworker opined that it
would not be safe for the children to be with mother for the foreseeable future. Testimony
also established that the children wished to move to Texas to live with their sister, who had
remained in Texas with father and who was then living with the children’s aunt and uncle.
The district court ordered custody permanently transferred to the aunt and uncle.
Mother appeals the order.
DECISION
Mother raises three arguments in her appeal challenging the custody- change order.
She contends that the district court erred by determining that the county made reasonable
efforts to reunify the family, that mother failed to correct the conditions that led to the
children’s placement in foster care, and that transfer is in the children’s best interests. She
also appears to raise the issue of whether the district court properly considered her efforts
to correct home conditions. We address these issues as one argument that the district court
erroneously permanently transferred custody under Minnesota Statutes section 260C.517
(2022).
Mother offers only conclusory, unsupported assertions of error. We decline to reach
issues that are not adequately briefed. In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D, 865 N.W.2d 315,
324 (Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015). Mother’s brief fails to support
5
her four positions with legal citation, reasoned argument, or explanation, and she fails to
identify any particular findings that she contends to be erroneous. We therefore affirm the
district court’s order.
We add that, even if we reached the merits of mother’s challenge, the result would
be the same because w e see no error in the district court’s custody-transfer order. A
permanency order must include detailed findings on four factors:
(1) how the child’s best interests are served by the order;
(2) the nature and extent of the responsible social services
agency’s reasonable efforts or, in the case of an Indian child,
active efforts to reunify the child with the parent or guardian
where reasonable efforts are required;
(3) the parent’s or parents’ efforts and ability to use services to
correct the conditions which led to the out-of-home placement;
and
(4) that the conditions which led to the out-of-home placement
have not been corrected so that the child can safely return
home.

Minn. Stat. § 260C.517(a). Each of the four statutorily required findings must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence. See Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.03, subd. 1. We address a
challenged permanent transfer of custody by reviewing the district court’s factual findings
for clear error and its finding of a statutory basis for the order for an abuse of discretion.
D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d at 321–22. Since the allegations must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, we decide whether the district court’s findings “address the statutory
criteria and are supported by substantial evidence, or whether they are clearly erroneous.”
In re Welfare of A.R.G.-B., 551 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn. App. 1996) (quotation omitted).
Our careful review of the record convinces us that the order should survive mother’s
appeal.
6
Regarding the best interests of the children, the evidence appears to adequately
support the district court’s factual findings and legal determination. The district court was
required to assess best interests by considering all relevant factors, such as the children’s
relationships with relatives and other relevant persons. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.513, .511
(2022); see also In re Welfare of Child. of J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d 653, 657 (Minn. App. 2021),
rev. denied (May 12, 2021). The district court found that the bond between mother and
children was damaged; that the children had suffered emotional trauma and wanted to live
with their aunt and uncle; and that their established relationship with their aunt and uncle
would allow them to repair relationships with their mother and father over time. Ample
testimony supports each finding.
The district court also properly applied the law to the agency’s reunification efforts.
It found that the county caseworker created a plan for mother that “required the mother to
abstain from unprescribed mood altering chemicals, complete and follow a chemical
dependency assessment, and attend and follow all recommendations from any necessary
chemical dependency treatment.” It emphasized too that “m other was also ordered to
complete parenting classes and a mental health evaluation and follow all the
recommendations.” And it found that mother had no contact with her caseworker for about
three months, left the caseworker unaware of her whereabouts, and did not follow through
until September 2021 with her promise to enter treatment. The district court’s analysis of
this factor is well reasoned.
As to mother’s effort and ability to use services, the district court determined that
mother did not make any progress on her case plan until September 2021 and that she has
7
made minimal progress towards sobriety and safe living. Despite mother’s challenge to the
district court’s conclusion, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. D.L.D., 865
N.W.2d at 321–22. And regarding mother’s contentions that the findings create the
impression of a lack of effort and convey a negative impression of her ability to reestablish
a relationship with her children, even if there was some evidence to support a different
finding, we are in no position on appeal to substitute our judgment for the district court’s
assessment (which, again, is supported by the evidence).
The district court’s conclusion that the conditions leading to out-of-home placement
had not been corrected at the time of trial also rests on sufficient support in the record. It
found that mother did not have a housing plan that would allow her to care for her children
and that she continues to minimize her role in the children’s emotional trauma. And it found
that these circumstances related to the placement-initiating conditions that endangered the
children’s emotional and physical well-being. The record contains abundant evidence for
these findings.
Affirmed.