In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. R. D., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-0436

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. R. D., Parent.

Filed September 8, 2025
Affirmed
Bond, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-JV-24-2362, 27-JV-24-2324

Rachelle Loewenson Stratton, Olivea Boyer, Hennepin County Adult Representation
Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant-mother K.R.D.)

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Mary M. Lynch, Senior Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County Human Services)

Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
respondent-father T.R.)

Angelica Van Heuveln, Juvenile Justice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (guardian ad
litem)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bond, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BOND, Judge
On appeal from the district court’s order transferring permanent legal and physical
custody of appellant-mother’s four children, appellant argues that the district court abused
its discretion by determining that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
We affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant K.R.D. is the biological mother of four children. In June 2023,
respondent Hennepin County Human Services (the county) filed a children-in-need-of-
protective-services (CHIPS) petition for all four children after the youngest tested positive
for narcotics and experienced withdrawal symptoms upon birth. On June 30, pursuant to
kinship placement agreements with the county, the two youngest children were placed with
their noncustodial father and the two older children were placed with their maternal
grandfather. The county established a voluntary interim case plan with mother’s input and
involvement. The case plan required mother to establish and maintain safe and suitable
housing, complete rule 25 and mental-health assessments and follow all recommendations,
provide urinalyses (UAs) to the county, complete parenting education, maintain contact
with the county, and participate in supervised visits with the children.
In October 2023, the district court adjudicated the children as CHIPS and ordered
mother to complete the case plan. In August 2024, the county filed two permanency
petitions for transfer of permanent legal and physical custody of the four children to their
respective placement caregivers. The district court held an admit/deny hearing at which
mother denied the allegations in the petitions. The district court found that the county had
established a prima facie case for both permanency petitions.
On December 12, 2024, the district court held a trial on the permanency petitions.
At trial, the county social worker who had been working with mother testified about the
3
county’s efforts to reunite mother with her children. 1 The social worker testified that
mother had been included in the establishment of the case plan and had been notified of
the only modification to it during the case, which was a change from requiring a baseline
UA to requiring consistent UAs to demonstra te sobriety. The county submitted referrals
for mother to various stable-housing programs, but the referrals were closed after mother
did not respond to the programs. The social worker also referred mother to various
inpatient treatment programs, which mother did not follow up on, causing those referrals
to also be closed. Mother alternated between telling the county that she would follow up
with treatment options and stating that she did not feel she needed treatment. The county
provided mother financial assistance for telephone and gas expenses throughout the case.
The social worker testified that the only time mother provided the required UAs was
at the monthly meetings when the social worker gave mother financial-assistance checks.
The county referred mother to a service to provide her a sweat patch for drug testing, but
the service determined that the patch they gave mother had been tampered with and could
not provide adequate results. The social worker put in a referral for mother to obtain
mental-health and chemical-dependency evaluations, but mother refused to participate in
the evaluations. The county referred mother to two organizations for parenting education
and supervised visits, but both organizations terminated services to mother based on
mother’s nonappearance or consistently late arrival for visits.

1 In addition to the social worker, the district court received numerous exhibits and heard
testimony from mother, the guardian ad litem, and the placement caregivers. Without
objection from mother, one of the caregivers submitted testimony via a sworn affidavit.
4
In January 2025, following trial, mother submitted a written closing argument, in
which she asserted that, leading up to trial, the county submitted various documents to the
court late. Mother argued that the county’s late filings “call[ed] into question whether
[mother] was provided with reasonable efforts.” In February, the district court issued an
order granting both permanency petitions and transferring physical and legal custody of
the children to their respective placement caregivers. As relevant h ere, the district court
found the social worker’s testimony credible and, based on the testimony and exhibits
received at trial, determined that the county had proven by clear and convincing evidence
that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
The district court’s order did not address mother’s argument about the county’s late
filings. Mother filed a motion for a new trial or amended findings, again asserting the
county’s untimely filings amounted to a failure to make reasonable efforts toward
reunification. The district court denied mother’s motion, reasoning that its determination
of reasonable efforts was based only on the testimony received at trial and exhibits in the
record, and that the county’s late filings “in no way impacted the Court’s determination.”
Mother appeals.
DECISION
When a child in court-ordered out-of-home placement cannot be reunified with their
custodial parent, the district court may transfer permanent physical and legal custody to a
“fit and willing relative.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.515, subd. 4 (2024). On appeal from an
order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of a child, we review the court’s
factual findings for clear error and its findings of a statutory basis for transferring custody
5
for an abuse of discretion. See In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315, 321
(Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015). “A district court abuses its
discretion if it makes findings of fact that lack evidentiary support, misapplies the law, or
resolves discretionary matters in a manner contrary to logic and the facts on record.” In re
Welfare of Child of T.M.A., 11 N.W.3d 346, 355 (Minn. App. 2024). When reviewing a
finding for clear error, appellate courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
finding, do not reweigh the evidence, and defer to the district court’s credibility
determinations. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-23 (Minn. 2021);
see also In re Welfare of Child of J.H., 968 N.W.2d 593, 601 n.6 (Minn. App. 2021)
(applying Kenney to review findings of fact in a juvenile-protection order), rev. denied
(Minn. Dec. 6, 2021).
A transfer-of-custody order must include detailed findings addressing four statutory
requirements: the best interests of the child; the nature and extent of the county’s
reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parent, where reasonable efforts are
required; the parent’s efforts to correct the conditions which led to the out-of-home
placement; and whether the conditions which led to the out-of-home placement have been
corrected so that the child can safely return home. Minn. Stat. § 260C.517(a)(1)-(4) (2024).
“Each of these four statutory requirements must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence.” In re Welfare of Child. of J.C.L., 958 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Minn. App. 2021), rev.
denied (Minn. May 12, 2021); see also Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.03, subd. 1 (providing
that “[i]n a permanency matter other than a termination of parental rights matter, the
standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence”).
6
Mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by transferring custody of
the children because it erroneously determined that the county made reasonable efforts
toward reunification. Except under circumstances not applicable here, the social services
agency must make “reasonable efforts” toward “rehabilitation and reunification” of the
family. Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2024). “[W]hat constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ depends
on the facts of each case.” J.H., 968 N.W.2d at 601 (quoting In re Welfare of Child of
A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018)). In determining whether the county
made reasonable efforts, the district court must consider whether the services were:
(1) selected in collaboration with the child’s family and,
if appropriate, the child;
(2) tailored to the individualized needs of the child and
child’s family;
(3) relevant to the safety, protection, and well- being of
the child;
(4) adequate to meet the individualized needs of the
child and family;
(5) culturally appropriate;
(6) available and accessible;
(7) consistent and timely; and
(8) realistic under the circumstances.

Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2024). We review the district court’s determination about the
reasonableness of the county’s efforts for an abuse of discretion and its underlying findings
of fact for clear error. D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d at 321-23.
Mother asserts that the district court erred in its reasonable-efforts determination
because the county was late in filing various documents in the district court. Specifically,
mother points to the untimely filing of a proposed order following the emergency-
protective-care hearing and an affidavit from one of the proposed custodians, which the
7
county filed after the trial in lieu of in-person testimony.2 Mother argues that the county’s
“continued and repeated lack of timely participation in the judicial process” resulted in the
county’s failure to fulfill its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.
We conclude that mother has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion by determining that the county established by clear and convincing evidence that
it made reasonable reunification efforts. First, mother does not explain precisely how the
county attorney’s late filings in court had any effect on the services provided by the social
services agency. Mother argues that, because the district court was required to consider
whether the reasonable efforts were “consistent and timely,” the c ounty’s delayed court
filings amount to a lack of reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Minn. Stat.
§ 260.012(h). But “reasonable efforts” generally refer s to the case -planning and other
“services” provided to the family by the “social services agency.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(f)
(2024). Mother does not identify, nor has our review of the record revealed, any evidence
supporting her contention that the services provided to the family in this case were
impacted by the county’s late court filings. See id. (“Reasonable efforts are made upon the
exercise of due diligence by the responsible social services agency to use culturally

2 Mother also contends that the county filed the kinship study and several prehearing reports
late. The district court’s order does not reference these late submissions, nor do they appear
elsewhere in the record. As the appellant, mother bears the burden to provide the recor d
on appeal. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995). Because
mother has not provided the record necessary to review her claims surrounding the late
kinship study and prehearing reports, we do not consider mother’s arguments relating to
those documents. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (providing that the record on appeal
consists of “documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the
proceedings”).
8
appropriate and available services to meet the individualized needs of the child and the
child’s family.”); see also In re Welfare of Child of R.V.M., 8 N.W.3d 680, 695-96 (Minn.
App. 2024) (rejecting parents’ argument that the county’s failure to timely file a written
case plan as required by Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 1(b) (2022), impacted the county’s
reasonable efforts because there was no evidence parents were not informed, or did not
understand, the conditions they had to satisfy to achieve reunification), rev. denied (Minn.
July 19, 2024).
Second, in its order denying mother’s motion for a new trial or amended findings,
the district court clarified that its determination that the county made reasonable efforts to
reunify the family was based on the evidence in the record and testimony given at trial; the
court expressly stated that the county’s late filings “in no way impacted” its reasonable-
efforts determination. Mother broadly asserts that the county’s late filings prejudiced her
by adversely affecting her ability to present a defense at trial, but she does not explain how
it did so. And, as we have noted, mother does not explain how the late filings affected the
district court’s reasonable-efforts determination that she challenges on appeal. Because
mother’s challenge to the district court’s order is based only on the county’s late filings,
which the district court explicitly stated were not a basis for its decision, mother canno t
show that the county’s late filings caused her any prejudicial error warranting reversal. See
Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (“[O]n appeal
error is never presumed. . . . [T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies
upon it. And we do not reverse unless there is error causing harm to the appealing party.”
9
(quotation omitted)); see also In re Welfare of Child. of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 171 (Minn.
App. 2005) (citing Midway in a juvenile-protection case).
Finally, while mother does not argue that the services the county provided were
inadequate, we have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the record supports
the district court’s determination that the county made reasonable efforts toward
reunification. At trial, the county social worker testified that she created the case plan with
mother’s input and involvement. The case plan was individualized to meet mother’s and
her children’s needs surrounding mother’s substance-use, mental- health, and housing
issues, and included supervised visits with the children, parenting education, random UAs,
mental-health evaluation, chemical-dependency evaluation, maintaining safe and suitable
housing, and cooperating and maintaining contact with the county. The county maintained
consistent contact with mother, provided multiple referrals for relevant services, and
provided mother with financial assistance during her case plan. The county gave mother
the opportunity to work the case plan for over ten months before filing permanency
petitions seeking the custody transfers. The district court found the social worker’s
testimony credible and, on appeal, mother challenges neither the accuracy of the social
worker’s testimony nor the credibility determination of the district court. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the county made reasonable
efforts toward reunification. See Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h).

Affirmed.