In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. L. S.- G., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-1342

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. L. S.- G., Parent.

Filed May 8, 2023
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-JV-20-3987

Anne Morris Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
appellant father R.L.S.- G.)

Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Mary Lynch, Senior Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County Health and Human
Services Department)

Ellen Murphy-Fritsch, White Bear Lake, Minnesota (for respondent mother, J.L.S.B.)

Andrew Lloyd, Minneapolis, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Laura Baldwin, Hennepin County Public De fender’s Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent child)

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Reilly , Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellant-father challenges a district court order terminating his parental rights to
his minor child. Because the record supports the district court’s determination that a
2
statutory ground for termination exists, the district court’s findings addressed the statutory
criteria, and the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings , we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant R.L.S.-G. is the father of a child born in November 2011. After the child
was born, father’s relationship with the child’s mother, J.L.S.B. , deteriorated. Father
moved out of the shared residence and the child remained mainly in mother’s care. Mother
and father had an informal agreement that allowed father to have custody of the child
during Christmas, winter break, and some summers.
Relevant Custody History
In June 2018, mother brandished a gun and threatened a carwash employee while
the child was in the backseat of her car. Mother contacted father about the incident and
requested that the child stay with father and his former fiancé, A.C. , who were living in
Waukegan, Illinois. Father agreed , picked the child up, and enrolled her in school in
Illinois. Mother was charged with second-degree felony assault and child endangerment.
Respondent Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department (Hennepin
County) opened a child protection investigation but was unable to meet with the child while
she was living with her father.
At the end of the summer, mother and grandmother had not heard from father or the
child and did not know where they were living. Mother and maternal grandmother
contacted law enforcement and the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children
(NCEMC) for assistance in locating the child. Hennepin County closed its child protection
investigation due to NCEMC’s involvement. NCEMC was unsuccessful in contacting
3
father. Consequently, mother filed an ex parte motion for custody in a family court file
and was awarded temporary custody of the child pendi ng a motion hearing. Mother
managed to contact the child and find out where father was living. Ultimately, t he child’s
school informed father that mother had traveled to Illinois and picked up the child to bring
her back to Minnesota.
In November 2018, f ather and A.C. relocated to Minnesota to live with father’s
sister. Father sought custody of the child through proceedings in the family court file .
During the custody hearing, mother exhibited strange behavior when she repeatedly ran
barefoot out of the courtroom without permission from the court. The court granted father
temporary sole legal and temporary sole physical custody of the child. In May 2019 after
an evidentiary hearing, the court granted full custody to father, finding that mother often
sent the child to live with maternal grandmother and needed to demonstrate stability to be
an appropriate caregiver to the child. After acquiring additional charges for criminal
conduct, mother was incarcerated from May to November 2019.
During this period, the child lived with father and A.C. in various residences
including father’s sister’s home in Pine City, A.C.’s home in Bloomington, and a residence
in North Minneapolis. After mother was released from prison and appeared to be doing
well, father allowed mother to have contact with the child. In July 2020, father dropped
the child off at mother’s home for a weekend visit. During this visit, the child disclosed to
mother instances of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by father . Mother brought the
child to the hospital for an evaluation and Dakota County Social Services (Dakota County)
4
investigated the allegations. Mother sought an emergency ex parte order for protection
from father on behalf of the child and for herself.
Physical and Sexual Abuse Investigations
A child protection investigator from Dakota County conducted a forensic interview
of the child. The child reported father pulled down her pants and underwear to “whoop”
her with his hand or a belt on several occasions . The child also reported, on multiple
occasions, father “whooped” her and used his finger to press on her vagina. This occurred
at least once in Pine City at father’s sister’s home. The child stated father made her pull
down her pants and underwear, held open her legs, and stared at her vagina at A.C.’s home
in Bloomington. She also reported father was angry about a pen that did not have ink and
scratched her stomach with the pen, drawing blood. The child stated that she did not feel
safe with father. The investigator spoke to father, who believed mother forced the child to
fabricate the allegations against him. The investigator had trouble contacting mother for
more information. Mother shared that she had text messages from father admitting his
abuse, but mother refused to provide them to the investigator because she was purportedly
working with law enforcement. The Dakota County investigator ultimately determined
that physical and sexual abuse did not occur and closed the investigation in August 2020.
In September, the child was interviewed at Midwest Children’s Resource Center
(MCRC) about her sexual-abuse allegations. 1 While the child’s allegations against father
were more numerous, many instances of abuse the child described were like those she

1 MCRC is a child advocacy center and clinic within Children’s Minnesota Hospital that
offers evaluations and services to victims of physical and sexual abuse or serious neglect.
5
described to the Dakota County investigator. The child reported father pulled down her
pants and underwear , looked at her vagina , and rubbed her vagina two times in
Bloomington and Pine City. The child reported father said, “If you love me, you’ll lick my
private parts” while he was undressed. The chil d stated the last instance that father
inappropriately touched her was at a residence in North Minneapolis.
Because the child indicated abuse took place in multiple locations , t hree law
enforcement jurisdictions investigated whether father should be criminally charged.
Ultimately, none of the jurisdictions charged father. And while Dakota County did not
find that father maltreated the child, Hennepin C ounty reviewed MCRC’s report and
determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that maltreatment
occurred, and child protective services were needed.
Petition to Terminate Parental Rights
In November 2020, Hennepin County petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights
based on father’s palpable unfitness to be a party to the parent -child relationship and the
child experiencing egregious harm while in father’s care. The district court held an
emergency protective care hearing and found that the petition made a prima facie showing
that father subjected the child to egregious harm. As a result, the district court determined
Hennepin County was not required to provide reasonable efforts to reunify father and the
child. The district court also ordered father to have no contact with the child and placed
the child in mother’s custody.
Despite being relieved of reasonable efforts, Hennepin County offered father a case
plan to work towards reunification, which included (1) completing a psychosexual
6
assessment and follow ing recommendations; (2) abid ing by all court orders, including no
contact with child; and (3) coopera ting with and remaining in contact with Hennepin
County. Father refused to complete the psychosexual assessment and requested that the
district court allow him to complete a parenting assessment instead. The district court and
Hennepin County did not remove the psychosexual assessment from father’s case plan, but
Hennepin County made a referral for father for the parenting-assessment service. During
the parenting assessment, father stated his relationship with mother “got physi cal a few
times.” Father informed the parenting assessor he pleaded guilty and served eight months
in jail for fifth-degree assault after mother complained he threatened to kill her with a gun.
Father stated he was innocent. T he assessors recommended th at father complete a
psychological evaluation, pursue individual therapy, complete anger -management
education, complete chemical-dependency treatment and submit random urinary analysis
tests to show sobriety, attend parenting- education classes, participate in co -parenting and
family therapy with the child, maintain stable housing, obtain financial assistance and food
stamp resources, and support the child’s individual therapy.
Termination of Parental Rights Trial
In July and August 2022, the district court held a trial on father’s parental rights.
The district court heard testimony from father, the child, the Dakota County investigator,
Hennepin County’s child protection investigator, the Hennepin County’s child protection
social worker, the medical director of MCRC, father’s sister, and the guardian ad litem
7
(GAL). Mother did not appear or testify. 2 The district court granted an adverse inference
against mother after being presented with evidence of her dishonesty.
Father testified that he did not physically or sexually abuse the child and believes
mother told the child to make the allegations. Father stated he received a letter from mother
forgiving him of approximately $20,000 in past -due child support the day after the child
disclosed the abuse . He admitted he had disciplined the child by spanking her but only
spanked her around five times and only used his hand. Father expressed concern for
mother’s ability to care for the child and testified that the child arrived at h is home in
Illinois with a vertical scratch on her stomach and a cigarette lighter burn on her arm.
Father acknowledged he was offered a case plan that required him to complete a
psychosexual assessment , despite Hennepin County being relieved of the obligation to
make reasonable efforts to reunify father and the child . He testified he did not want to
participate in the psychosexual assessment because it is “extremely intrusive.” Father
stated he was in therapy, completed anger -management classes, and completed domestic-
violence classes. In its order following trial, the district court made detailed credibilit y
findings for each witness. The district court did not find father’s testimony to be credible
as it often conflicted with contemporaneous recor ds and the testimony of other credible
witnesses.

2 In April 2022, arrest warrants were issued for mother based on first -degree aggravated
robbery charges. Mother failed to appear before the district court for pretrial hearings and
her whereabouts were unknown during the trial. The child was resid ing with her maternal
grandmother.
8
The child testified that she was happy when she first went to live with father in 2018,
but later felt uncomfortable living with him. She stated it was not unusual for father to
“whoop” her with a belt or his hand and leave marks on her body. The child testified that
when she was in trouble, father pulled her pants down, hit her with a belt, and inserted his
finger into her vagina. She stated she also witnessed her father having sex , hitting A.C. on
multiple occasions, and taking drugs when he put a “smashed up pill ” in his nose. The
child testified the only event her mother told her to make up was the allegation that father
scratched her stomach with a pen. She affirmed that she did not fabricate her ot her
allegations, nor did mother or maternal grandmother ask her to lie about any other event .
The child stated she did not feel safe returning to her father’s care, felt scared of her father,
and would not like to see him “even if things could be different.” The district court found
that the child’s testimony was generally credible and persuasive.
The Dakota County investigator testified about her inquiry into the child’s
allegations and the forensic interview. The investigator testified she only investigated the
scar on the child’s stomach as an instance of physical abuse and did not consider any
allegations of hitting or corporal punishment. The investigator described mother’s
emotional state as “disappointed” after the child’s interview and believed mother to be
uncooperative. The district court found the Dakota County investigator’s testimony
credible but did not afford her determinations great weight because they were based on
insufficient investigation and general impressions of the parties to the proceeding.
Hennepin County’s child protection investigator testified that her investigation
began after receiving a report from MCRC about the child’s sexual-abuse allegations. She
9
testified she had access to th e Dakota County investigation notes and conclusions through
a shared system but completed her own independent investigation into the child’s
allegations. Hennepin County was not bound by the findings of Dakota County and the
Hennepin County investigator independently determined father maltreated the child.
Hennepin County’s child protection social worker testified she was assigned to the
case in November 2020 and met with the child monthly. The social worker testified that
father’s completion of the psychosexual assessment was important to determine any future
risk to the child. Hennepin County referred father to Project Pathfinder to aid him in
completing the assessment, but father cancelled his appointment and made no attempts to
reschedule after Hennepin County continued to facilitate father’s participation in the
program. The social worker testified father completed anger -management and chemical -
dependency programming to comply with the terms of criminal probation, not as part of
Hennepin County’s case plan or recommendations from the parenting assessment. The
social worker acknowledged father has consistently denied the allegations and
acknowledged mother has been convicted of crimes of dishonesty, such as check forgery,
pawning someone else’s property, giving a police officer a false name, and identity theft.
The social worker testified that she believed termination of father’s parental rights was in
the best interests of the child based on in- depth conversations with the child and the
seriousness of the allegations.
The GAL testified that he was assigned to the case in November 2021 and met with
the child monthly. The GAL indicated he regularly spoke with father and believed him to
be “open and transparent” with “great potential to parent [the child].” The GAL testified
10
he was concerned mother influenced the child to fabricate the allegations and believed
termination of father’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interests because father
participated in the case plan, was pr esent at hearings, and was honest. Nor did the GAL
believe mother could offer the stability the child needs. He believed the child had a positive
relationship with her maternal grandmother but expressed some concern for the number of
children maternal gr andmother was caring for together with the child. The GAL testified
the child told him she was open to possibly communicating with father in the future, but
indicated she did not want to live with him. The district court found the GAL’s testimony
credible but unpersuasive, observing that the GAL focused exclusively on reunification
and disregarded the child’s testimony and evidence contrary to reunification.
3 The district
court noted the GAL may have doubted the child’s allegations but did not know for certain
whether they were fabricated . The district court was troubled that the GAL refused to
consider what would be in the child’s best interests if the allegations were true.
In September 2022, the dis trict court filed an order terminating father’s parental
rights to the child. The district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that father
(1) repeatedly hit the child with her pants and underwear removed with his hand or belt
and left marks; (2) put his finger in the child’s vagina while “whooping” her on at least one
occasion; (3) ordered the child to remove her pants and underwear , stared at her vagina ,
and restrained the child’s legs; (4) assaulted mother during their relationship and hit or

3 We note that Minnesota law requires GALs to carry out particular responsibilities to
protect and advocate for the best i nterests of the child. Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subd. 5
(2022). Among those responsibilities, a GAL must “conduct an independent investigation”
which must include “considering the child’s wishes.” Id., subd. 5(b)(1).
11
slapped A.C. in the child’s presence; (5) used drugs in the child’s presence; and
(6) monitored and restricted the child’s contact with her maternal relatives . The district
court determined father was palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship, the
child experienced egregious harm while in father’s care , and it was in the child’s best
interests to terminate father’s parental rights.
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 (1) a statutory basis for terminating parental rights
under Minn. Sta t. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) (2022), exists; (2) reasonable efforts towards
reunification were made or not required ; and (3) the termination is in the child ’s best
interests. See In re Welfare of Child. of S.E.P ., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). The
county must prove the statutory basis for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.03, subd. 2(a); In re Welfare of Child of H.G.D., 962 N.W.2d 861,
873 (Minn. 2021).
We review the district court’s “findings of the underlying or basic facts for clear
error,” but we review its determinations of whether a particular statutory basis for
termination exists and whether termination is in a child’s best interests for an abuse of
discretion. In re Welfare of Child. of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2011), rev.
denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly
contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by t he evidence as a
12
whole.” In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation
omitted). On clear error review, we do not “engage in fact -finding anew” or “reconcile
conflicting evidence.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney , 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn.
2021) (quotation omitted) ; see 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). “When the record reasonably supports the f indings at issue on appeal, it is
immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings
to the contrary.” Kenney , 963 N.W.2d at 223 (quotation omitted) . We will not conclude
the district court clearly erred “unless, on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 221 (quotation omitted).
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining father was
palpably unfit to be a party to the pare nt and child relationship and made
adequate findings to address the statutory criteria.

A district court may terminate parental rights to a child if clear and convincing
evidence shows
that 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.

Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4). Term ination on this statutory ground requires a
“consistent pattern of specific conduct or specific conditions existing at the time of the
[trial] that appear will continue for a prolonged, indefinite period and that are permanently
13
detrimental to the welfare of the child.” In re Welfare of Child. of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656,
661 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted) . There must be a connection between the parent’s
behavior and the parent’s inability to care for the child. Id. at 662-63.
Father argues the district court’s analysis failed to conform to the statutory criteria
outlined in section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(4), because the district court did not specify
the condition or specific pattern of conduct that rendered father unable to care for the child.
We disagree. Indeed, the district court must make clear and specific findings that conform
to the statutory requirements. In re Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980);
see also S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 385 (holding appellate courts generall y review orders
terminating parental rights “to determine whether the district court’s findings address the
statutory criteria”). Here, the district court addressed the palpable unfitness statutory
criteria in a thorough and detailed 50-page order with ex tensive factual and credibilit y
findings.
While the district court did not expressly articulate that it considered certain acts by
father to be a “consistent pattern of specific conduct” or “specific conditions,” the district
court found father “hit [the child] repeatedly when [her] pants and under wear were
removed” with his hand or a belt and “frequently” disciplined her in this way. The district
court also found that two acts of sexual abuse occurred where father put his finger in the
child’s vagina while disciplining her and ordered her to remove her pants and underwear
to stare at her vagina. These facts address and satisfy the first statutory criteria . Father’s
14
repeated physical and sexual violence against the child in his care are “specific conditions”
detrimental to the child’s safety.4
Moreover, the se findings are supported by substantial evidence. The district court
is in a “superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” In re Welfare of Child of
S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 733 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted). The district court
carefully evaluated the testimony of the child and father. Even though the child admitted
mother asked her to fabricate the allegation that father scratched her stomach with a pen,
the district court found the rest of the child’s testimony credible as it largely aligned with
the statements she gave to Dakota County and MCRC. The child was forthright when she
could not recall something at trial. The district court did not find father’s testimony
credible as his testimony often conflicted with evidence in the record or the testimony of
credible witnesses. Before making its findings, the district court also weighed the fact
father was never criminally charged for the child’s sex ual-abuse allegations and the
disparate findings of maltreatment by Dakota County and Hennepin County. On these
facts, the district court did not clearly err.

4 To the extent father contends the district court erred by not drawing on statutory language
when making findings for the palpable unfitness analysis , any resulting error is harmless
when a review of the “files, the record, and the [district] court’s findings” show “on remand
the [district] court would undoubtedly make findings that comport with the statutory
language” and reach the same result. Grein v. Grein, 364 N.W.2d 383, 387 (Minn. 1985)
(declining to remand in a child -custody matter); see In re Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d
170, 176 (Minn. App. 1997) (refusing to reverse termination of parental rights for harmless
error); see also In re Welfare of Child of A.D.B., 970 N.W.2d 725, 730- 31 (Minn. App.
2022) (citing D.J.N.). Between the record and the district court’s detailed and we ll-
reasoned order, we are satisfied that the district court would no doubt reach the same result
on remand for more findings under the palpable-unfitness statutory ground.
15
The district court made findings on the remaining statutory criteria for terminating
father’s parental rights under section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(4). While the district
court did not state the conditions “directly relat[ed] to the parent child relationship” and
were “of a duration or nature that renders [father] unable . . . to care” for the child, the
district court made findings that linked father’s physical and sexual abuse to instances when
father was disciplining the child. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4). Father’s repeated
sexual abuse is conduct of a n inappropriate and violent nature that renders him unable to
care for the “physical, mental, or emotional needs of the child.” Id. Finally, palpable
unfitness requires that the conditions will continue “for the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Id. The district co urt found father’s “ abusive conduct will continue for a prolonged,
indeterminate period” because father did not engage in any services relevant to the child’s
allegations such as completing a psychosexual assessment or showing he completed
domestic-violence programming. The district court acknowledged father engaged in
anger-management courses, chemical -dependency treatment, individual therapy, and a
home study. But the district court observed those services are not “professionally
recognized forms of tre atment for perpetrators of sexual . . . abuse.” At the time of the
trial, father had taken no steps to engage in assessing or treating the underlying condition
giving rise to the petition: his physically and sexually-abusive behavior . As a result, the
district court permissibly concluded that the continuing, untreated conditions render father
unable to care for the child for a prolonged, indefinite period.
Father also contends his noncompliance with a “voluntary case plan” and refusal to
complete a psychosexual assessment was given undue weight by the district court . Father
16
cites In re Welfare of Child. of T.R. and argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court
considered case plan compliance “largely irrelevant” to the palpable unfitness analysis.
750 N.W.2d at 663. We are not persuaded . In T.R., the parent’s noncompliance with a
case plan’s requirement to establish sobriety was not evidence of his palpable unfitness
when the parent’s alcohol and substance use was not shown to form a “consistent pattern
of specific conduct” or “specific conditions” that rendered him unable to care for the child.
Id. Although T.R. holds that case plan noncompliance is not dispositive to the palpable
unfitness analysis, a district court may still consider a parent’s case plan compliance when
the plan’s requirements are relevant to the pattern of conduct or conditions that bear on
palpable unfitness. Id. Unlike T.R., requiring father to complete a psychosexual
assessment directly relates to a specific condition—sexual abuse, that is causally connected
to his inability to care for the child. Father’s refusal to comply with that component of the
case plan indicates the conditions giving rise to the petition to terminate parental rights are
untreated and will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future. The district court
correctly considered and gave weight to these facts in its determination.
Because the district court made the statutorily required findings supported by clear
and convincing evidence, w e conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by
determining that father is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent -child relationship.5

5 Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s conclusion to
terminate father’s parental rights on this statutory basis, we need not address whether the
district court abused its discretion by determining 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
II. The district court’s factual finding is not clearly erroneous.
Father argues a particular finding of fact made by the district court is clearly
erroneous. “A finding is clearly erroneous only if there is no reasonable evidence to
support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake occurred.” In re Welfare of J.H., 844 N.W.2d 28, 35 (Minn. 2014) (quotation
omitted). The contested district court’s finding of fact states:
At trial, [father] testified he believes the psychosexual
requirement was “reversed,” but he was not sure by whom. He
did not recall whether this [c]ourt told him to complete a
psychosexual evaluation. [Father] did not do a psychosexual
assessment because he had already been “extremely
uncomfortable” during the parenting assessment he chose to
do, and he believed completing a psychosexual assessment
would be worse. He also did not do a psychosexual assessment
because it would be “extremely intrusive.” Notably, [father]
did not say he refused to complete a psychosexual assessment
because he did not sexually abuse [the child].

At oral argument, father’s counsel clarified father was troubled by the “tone” of the
last sentence. Father argues the finding that his testimony about why he refused the
psychosexual assessment did not include a defense that he never sexually abused the child
contradicts father’s repeated denials of the allegations. We disagree. The finding, which
accurately summarizes father’s trial testimony, is supported by the record. Other findings
made by the district court acknowledge father’s repeated assertions of innocence and his
belief that mother prompted the child to fabricate the allegations. The district court ’s
observation that father’s stated reason for refusing the psychosexual assessment was his
18
discomfort rather than a claim of innocence does not leave us “with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake occurred.” Id. As a result, the finding is not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.