In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. P. (f/k/a P. P.) and P. P., 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1757

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
P. P. (f/k/a P. P.) and P. P., Parents.

Filed May 6, 2024
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Otter Tail County District Court
File No. 56-JV-23-1509

Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant-
father P.P.)

Michelle Eldien, Otter Tail County Attorney, Kathleen J. Schur, Assistant County
Attorney, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (for respondent Otter Tail County Department of Human
Services)

P.P. (confidential address) (pro se respondent-mother)

Deanne Raitz, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and

Frisch, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FRISCH, Judge

Appellant-father challenges the termination of his parental rights. Because the

district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing father’s interest in maintaining the

parent-child relationship against the children’s best interests, we affirm.
 FACTS

Appellant-father P.P. and mother have six joint children. Father and mother resided

together until fall 2021. Around that time, mother obtained an order for protection (OFP)

against father. Father violated the OFP and was imprisoned. Father had supervised

visitation with his children over Zoom, which was coordinated through a parenting-time

center. In spring 2022, the parenting-time center ended its involvement in coordinating

father’s visitation when he violated the center’s rules.

In April 2022, following the end of the involvement of the parenting-time center,

father forcibly entered mother’s parents’ home, where mother was living with the children.

Father was not permitted to be at the home due to the OFP. Father hit mother in the head

with a gun and shot mother twice. The children were in the home during the incident.

Mother was hospitalized and ultimately survived her injuries. In May, father pleaded guilty

to attempted second-degree murder.

In July 2023, respondent Otter Tail County Human Services petitioned to terminate

father’s parental rights. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and ruled

that the county was not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent placement or to place

the children with father pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(1) (2022). See Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.301, subd. 8(2) (2022) (providing that a district court may make a finding that

“reasonable efforts for reunification are not required as provided under section 260.012”).

In October 2023, the parties including father appeared for an evidentiary hearing.

The district court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that

father is palpably unfit to parent and that the children experienced egregious harm under

2
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), (6) (2022). The district court determined that

termination was in the children’s best interests and that their interest outweighed any

interest of father in maintaining the parent-child relationship. The district court terminated

father’s parental rights and ordered that mother have sole legal custody and sole physical

custody of the children.

Father appeals.

DECISION

A district court may involuntarily terminate parental rights if: (1) the county made

reasonable efforts toward reunification or reasonable efforts are not required; (2) there is

clear and convincing evidence that a statutory condition exists to support termination under

Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b); and (3) the proposed termination is in the child’s best

interests. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.301, subds. 1(b), 7-8, .317, subd. 1 (2022); see also In re

Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). Father challenges only

the district court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Specifically, father argues that the district court’s determination regarding father’s interest

in maintaining the parent-child relationship is erroneous because it “fails to give adequate

weight to father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship.” Father points to

his love for his children, his efforts to better himself while in prison, his ability to address

the children’s mental-health needs, his determination to rectify his actions, and a lack of

negative reactions by the children to Zoom contact with him prior to the April 2022

incident. We note that father does not challenge the district court’s determinations that

3
clear and convincing evidence established that he is palpably unfit to parent and that the

children experienced egregious harm resulting from father’s actions.

A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(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.” In re Welfare

of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also

Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring the district court to address these factors in

a termination proceeding). “The paramount consideration in termination of parental rights

proceedings is the best interests of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of B.J.-M., 744

N.W.2d 669, 672 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). If the interests of a child and a parent

conflict, the child’s interests prevail. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7. “The ‘best interests

of the child’ means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated.” Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.511(a) (2022). We “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district

court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.” A.M.C.,

920 N.W.2d at 657.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the children’s interest in

safety conflicted with and outweighed father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child

relationship. The district court acknowledged father’s interest in maintaining the parent-

child relationship in its conclusions of law, writing, “[Father] states that he wants to

maintain his relationships with his children and that he wants to see them.”

The district court continued, “The children have a competing interest for safety that

favors termination of parental rights, and that outweighs whatever interest [father] has in

4
maintaining his parent-child relationships.” In concluding that the children’s interest in

safety outweighed father’s interest in preserving the relationship, the district court pointed

to father’s conduct during the April 2022 incident that arose “due to concern for his

children” and father’s history of violating domestic-abuse no-contact orders (DANCOs). 1

The district court expressed concern that prior court orders had not been effective at

mitigating safety concerns and that father may use the children to control mother. The

district court also noted that the children were doing well because of the stability of their

environment and that the mental health of the two oldest children had improved with

individual therapy. The district court acknowledged father’s testimony about his want for

parenting time through the county so that mother would not be involved, his studies in

prison, and his doctorate degree in religion. The district court weighed this interest against

the children’s interest, and properly prioritized the children’s interests. Minn. Stat.

§ 260C.301, subd. 7.

The record supports the district court’s findings that the children’s interest in safety

competed with father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship. The GAL

1
Before the evidentiary hearing, the county moved the district court to take judicial notice
of the “Findings of Fact and Court Orders relating to the parents or children contained” in
five criminal and one family-law case files. At the evidentiary hearing, the district court
granted the county’s motion and took judicial notice of the filings. See Minn. R. Juv. Prot.
P. 3.02, subd. 3 (permitting a district court to take judicial notice of “findings of fact and
court orders in the juvenile protection court file and in any other proceeding in any other
court file involving the child or the child’s parent or legal custodian”). The records from
these files are not included in the record on appeal. But we note that father did not object
to the district court taking judicial notice of these filings and does not challenge any factual
findings related to those filings on appeal. We therefore consider the district court’s
findings regarding those files for purposes of our decision.

5
opined that it was not in the children’s best interests to maintain their parent-child

relationship with father “due to the trauma they have experienced as a result of the [April

2022 incident] and previously witnessed domestic violence in their home when [father]

resided with the family.” The district court credited the GAL’s testimony and discredited

father’s testimony.

Father pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder of mother. He admitted

that his presence at the home during the April 2022 incident was in violation of an OFP,

he was previously imprisoned for violating that OFP, and he was convicted of violating

two DANCOs. 2 While the social worker who testified at the evidentiary hearing could not

say that the children had a negative reaction to their virtual parenting time with father prior

to the April 2022 incident, father’s assertion that this testimony supports the determination

that his interest should be prioritized following the April 2022 incident ignores the impact

of the April 2022 incident on his relationship with the children. The children were in the

home during the April 2022 incident. Diagnostic assessments by the therapist for the two

oldest children note that the children avoided discussing past trauma but displayed

symptoms best explained by a trauma diagnosis. One child became upset when the

therapist noted father as “dad” on a piece of paper and asked the therapist to “scribble out

the word dad and then had [the therapist] cut that part of the paper off.” Given this record

and the district court’s credibility determinations, we conclude that the district court did

2
The record on appeal does not contain filings from the DANCOs or the OFP, but father
does not contend that the district court’s findings regarding those filings are erroneous.

6
not abuse its discretion in determining that the children’s interest in safety outweighed

father’s interests in maintaining the parent-child relationship.

Affirmed.

7