In re the Matter of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0126

In re the Matter of:

Western Prairie Human Services,
Respondent,

Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Respondent,

vs.

County of Benton,
Appellant.

Filed August 12, 2024
Affirmed
Larson, Judge

Pope County District Court
File No. 61-CV-23-88

Justin Anderson, Anderson Law Office, PA, Elbow Lake, Minnesota (for respondent
Wester Prairie Human Services)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, R. J. Detrick, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services)

Kathleen L. Reuter, Benton County Attorney, Michelle L. Meyer, Assistant County
Attorney, Foley, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larson, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.
∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
This appeal stems from a dispute over whether Benton County or Pope County is
financially responsible for the cost of foster- care services for the minor children of A.C.
(mother). The dispositive question is which county mother resided in on November 3,
2022, the date her children were placed in foster care. Because we conclude the district
court correctly determined that mother lived in Benton County on that date, we affirm.
FACTS
In September 2022, appellant Benton County Human Services (BCHS) received a
prenatal-exposure report after mother tested positive for THC during prenatal care. In
response to the report, BCHS opened chemical-dependency and Parent Support Outreach
Program (PSOP) assessment files. BCHS personnel met with mother on October 3, 2022,
at a Salvation Army in Benton County. During the interview, mother indicated that she
lived at the Salvation Army with her five children. When offered PSOP resources, mother
responded that she planned to move to Glenwood, in Pope County, on October 5, 2022, to
get a fresh start, and requested a PSOP referral to Pope County. BCHS personnel informed
mother that there would be adverse child-protection consequences if she tested positive for
controlled substances when she gave birth.
On October 5, 2022, mother signed a year-long lease for an apartment in Pope
County. The lease listed mother and her five children as occupants. Monthly rent for the
apartment was $550, while mother’s monthly income totaled $835. Even though she did

3
not have a driver’s license and relied on others for transportation, mother continued to
receive pregnancy-related medical care in St. Cloud.
On October 17, 2022, BCHS received a second prenatal-exposure report. The
reporter stated that mother was homeless, and that mother ’s five children were residing
with mother’s friend M.C. (caretaker) in Benton County. During a phone call with BCHS
that same day, mother reported moving to Pope County on October 5, 2022, and stated that
she planned to move her children to Pope County later that day. BCHS subsequently
referred the report to respondent Western Prairie Human Services (WPHS),1 which opened
PSOP and child-protection files for mother.
WPHS attempted to contact mother at the Pope County apartment on October 20,
2022. Mother did not answer the door, and two children unrelated to mother told the WPHS
worker that mother was not home because she “was stuck in St. Cloud.”2
The next day, WPHS visited caretaker’s home to speak with caretaker and the
children. During the visit, caretaker indicated that the children had not seen mother “for
nearly two weeks.” Two of mother’s children stated that they were supposed to move to
Pope County, but mother had not picked them up for the move. The two children also told
WPHS personnel that they had cats at the Pope County apartment.

1 WPHS is a Joint Powers Entity that provides social services to both Grant County and
Pope County and represents Pope County in this appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 471.59 (2022).
2 The city of St. Cloud is located in three different counties: Stearns County, Benton
County, and Sherburne County. Wherever possible, this opinion refers to the specific
county in which an event occurred.

4
WPHS contacted mother via telephone on October 24, 2022, and asked when
mother planned to return to Pope County. Mother said she would return “as soon as she
had a ride,” and hoped to return to Pope County “by the end of the month.” Mother also
said she planned to enroll the children in the Minnewaska school district when she returned
to Pope County.
On November 2, 2022, WPHS located mother in the Sherburne County Jail after
she was arrested for smoking Percocet in a gas -station bathroom. That same day, BCHS
received a report that mother had given birth to her sixth child. Mother disclosed that she
slept in Benton County the night before the birth. At the hospital, m other tested positive
for cocaine and fentanyl, resulting in Benton County placing a child-protection hold on the
newborn.
The following day, November 3, 2022, all six of mother’s children were placed on
a police officer’s hold for foster care. BCHS interviewed mother’s children that day, and
one of the children reported living in Pope County for a short time. The same child also
said she knew mother was staying at a friend’s apartment near Highway 10, apparently
referring to an apartment in Benton County. In later interactions, the children indicated
that their personal belongings, and clothing in particular, were in Pope County.
BCHS met with mother on November 8, 2022. Mother reported that she had no
place to live and was homeless. Later that month, BCHS contacted mother’s landlord in
Pope County and learned that, although mother paid rent for October, mother had not paid
November’s rent, and the landlord had not heard from mother “for an extended period of
time.” BCHS met with mother again on November 23, 2022, and helped her negotiate an

5
early moveout from the Pope County apartment to avoid eviction. During the meeting,
mother told BCHS that the move to Pope County was an attempt at “drying out,” but she
had been unsuccessful at getting sober. After the meeting, BCHS returned mother to an
apartment complex on the east side of St. Cloud, where she intended to stay with a relative.
On December 9, 2022, BCHS sent WPHS a letter requesting that Pope County
assume financial responsibility for the foster- care services for mother’s children. WPHS,
on behalf of Pope County, denied financial responsibility in a letter dated December 16,
2022. BCHS then submitted a request for resolution of the financial-responsibility dispute
to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) on January 3, 2023. In both its
letter to WPHS and its request to DHS, BCHS reported that mother had “been homeless
and either sleeping ‘on the streets’ or staying with friends temporarily” since November 3,
2022.
On February 14, 2023, a human-services judge (HSJ) issued a recommended order
determining Pope County was financially responsible for the children’s foster care. The
HSJ determined that the last time the children lived with mother, prior to the date the
children became eligible for foster-care services, was at the apartment in Pope County.
Based on this determination, the HSJ concluded that Pope County was financially
responsible for the foster-care services of mother’s children. A co-chief HSJ adopted the
recommended order as DHS’s final decision on February 16, 2023. WPHS appealed
DHS’s decision to the district court on March 13, 2023. The district court reversed DHS,
determining that Benton County was financially responsible for the children’s foster-care
costs.

6
BCHS appeals.
DECISION
BCHS challenges the district court’s decision to reverse DHS’s decision and
conclude that BCHS is the financially responsible county for the children’s foster care. “In
reviewing decisions of administrative agencies, [we are] not bound by the district court’s
decision. [We] may conduct an independent examination of the administrative agency’s
record and decision and arrive at [our] own conclusions as to the propriety of that
determination.” Signal Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Brynwood Transfer Co., 288 N.W.2d 707,
710 (Minn. 1980).
We apply the Minnesota Unitary Residence and Financial Responsibility Act (the
Act), Minn. Stat. §§ 256G.01-.12 (2022 & Supp. 2023) 3 to determine the county of
financial responsibility for foster-care services. See In re Fin. Resp. of Foster Care Servs.
Provided to T.W., 627 N.W.2d 102, 104 (Minn. App. 2001). “Interpreting the act is a
question of law, which [we] review[] de novo.” Id.
Under the Act, as relevant here, the “[c]ounty of financial responsibility” is “the
county in which the applicant resides at the time of application.” Minn. Stat. § 256G.02,
subd. 4(b). To determine “financial responsibility, residence must be determined as of the
date . . . of eligibility. ” Minn. Stat. § 256G .04, subd. 1. A minor child’s residence is
determined by “derivative settlement,” meaning “[ t]he residence of the parent . . . with

3 The legislature substantially amended chapter 256G during the 2024 legislative session.
See 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 79, art. 3, §§ 8-17. Because these statutory changes did not take
effect until August 1, 2024, see Minn. Stat. § 645.02 (2022), we do not address them here.

7
whom that child last lived . . . . Physical or legal custody has no bearing on residence
determinations.” Minn. Stat. § 256G.10. We have not set forth the standard to apply when
identifying the county of financial responsibility for foster-care services. But in the context
of social services, we have stated that the county of financial responsibility “depends on
the circumstances of the case.” See T.W., 627 N.W.2d at 104.
BCHS argues that DHS correctly interpreted and applied the Act to the facts in this
case, leading DHS to its conclusion that Pope County is financially responsible for the
children’s foster-care services. We disagree.
It is undisputed that the parent with whom the children last resided was mother.
Thus, to determine the county of financial responsibility, DHS needed to determine where
mother resided on November 3, 2022, when mother’s children entered foster care. See
Minn. Stat. §§ 256G.04, subd. 1, 256G.10. However, DHS erroneously based its decision
on where mother and children last resided together, rather than on where mother resided
on November 3, 2022. And, as explained below, mother resided in Benton County on
November 3, 2022.
The record demonstrates that, on October 17, 2022, BCHS received a prenatal
exposure report stating that mother was “homeless.” A few days later, WPHS attempted
to locate mother in Pope County and learned that mother “was stuck in St. Cloud.” Around
this same time, WPHS spoke with mother’s children, and two of the children indicated that
mother had apparently abandoned plans to move the children to Pope County. During a
subsequent interaction, one child told a BCHS employee that mother had been staying at a
friend’s apartment in Benton County. And when mother gave birth to her sixth child in

8
St. Cloud, she reported sleeping in an apartment in Benton County the previous night.
Thus, the record indicates that, by October 17, 2022, mother had returned to Benton
County, and there is no indication that mother returned to Pope County before November
3, 2022.
The record further illustrates that on and after November 3, 2022, mother did not
return to Pope County. On the day the children were placed in foster care, mother was
receiving medical care at a hospital in St. Cloud after giving birth. In subsequent
discussions between mother and BCHS, mother reported that she was homeless after
leaving the hospital. In late November, a BCHS employee drove mother to an apartment
complex on the east side of St. Cloud where mother indicated an intent to stay with a
relative. And BCHS admitted in its letter to WPHS and its dispute- resolution request to
DHS, that mother had “been homeless and either sleeping ‘on the streets’ or staying with
friends temporarily” since November 3, 2022. Given these facts, we conclude that, under
the circumstances of this case, Benton County is the county of financial responsibility
because mother resided in Benton County on the day the children entered foster care.
BCHS disagrees, arguing mother’s year-long lease for the apartment in Pope County
dispositively shows that mother resided in Pope County. We are not persuaded. While it
is true that mother leased an apartment in Pope County, the record does not indicate that
mother intended to maintain the lease. Other than October, the first month of the lease,
mother never paid rent for the apartment, nor did she contact her landlord about her failure
to pay rent. The record also indicates that mother did not have the financial means to pay
her rent, given that her monthly rent obligation was more than 60% of her purported

9
monthly income. When contacted in mid-November, mother’s landlord indicated that she
had been unable to contact mother “for an extended period of time.” And in late November,
BCHS helped mother negotiate an early moveout to avoid eviction. Under these facts,
mother’s lease in Pope County, without other evidence that she, in fact, was living at the
apartment, does not show that she resided in Pope County on November 3, 2022.
Considering the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that the county
of financial responsibility for children’s foster-care services is Benton County because
mother resided in Benton County on November 3, 2022. We, therefore, affirm the district
court’s decision to reverse DHS.
Affirmed.