Forsberg v. Hennepin County Human Services Department, No. A04-238 (MN 12/28/2004)
| Decision Date | 28 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A04-238.,A04-238. |
| Parties | Robin Forsberg, Respondent, v. Hennepin County Human Services Department, Appellant, Commissioner of Human Services, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. WA 03-014194.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Cynthia Jahnke, Assistant Attorney General, (for appellant Commissioner of Human Services)
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Julie K. Harris, Assistant County Attorney, (for appellant Hennepin County Human Services Department)
Louise Anne Bruce, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
After appellant Hennepin County Human Services Department (HCHS) denied respondent Robin Forsberg's claim for foster care payments, Forsberg requested an administrative hearing from the Appeals Department of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (Appeals Department). The Appeals Department held that it lacked authority to hear the claim. The district court reversed and ordered foster care payments and attorney fees. On appeal, HCHS asserts that the district court erred in relevant part because (1) the Appeals Department lacked statutory authority to hear Forsberg's claim; (2) the district court considered issues not preserved on appeal; (3) the district court's award of certain foster care payments was contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence; and (4) the district court relied on 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2000) to award attorney fees without legal authority to do so. HCHS also moves to strike documents from the appendix to Forsberg's brief. We reverse and remand to the Appeals Department, and we grant the motion.
M.S. and M.T. divorced in October 1994. In accordance with the dissolution judgment, M.T. received sole physical custody of the parties' children, K. and M.
M.S. filed a petition for an order for protection against M.T. in September 1997. The record does not include a transcript from the domestic abuse proceeding. But there is evidence that M.T.'s ability to care for K. was compromised. As a result, M.S. requested temporary physical custody of K., and the parties were referred for a custody evaluation.
While the custody evaluation was pending, M.T. and M.S. agreed that Robin Forsberg, one of K.'s teachers, would take temporary custody of K. K. began residing with Forsberg in January 1998. At this time, Forsberg did not receive financial support from Hennepin County.1 But Forsberg paid for K.'s psychotherapy and later began hosting M. for overnight visits.
The custody evaluation completed in July 1998 found that M.T. was verbally and emotionally abusive toward K. and M. Although there were subsequent efforts to proceed with custody hearings in family court throughout 1998, the record indicates that no substantive action was taken until a hearing on February 23, 1999. The district court order of March 2, 1999, established that Forsberg would continue to have temporary custody of K. Finding that neither M.T. nor M.S. had the capacity to parent and that K. is "endangered in the physical custody of [M.T.]," the district court further directed the guardian ad litem for K. and M. to initiate a child protection proceeding in juvenile court.
The guardian ad litem brought a child protection action in April 1999. Following an initial hearing, the juvenile court ordered custody of K. to remain with Forsberg. Child protection assessments were performed, and in July 1999, legal custody of K. was transferred to the Hennepin County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS). Because the ensuing foster placement orders directed Forsberg to provide foster care, K. continued to reside with Forsberg during this period. K. remained in the foster placement with Forsberg until mid-December 1999, when Forsberg's health prevented her from providing K. additional foster care.
Forsberg requested reimbursement in January 2002 from HCHS for the expenses she incurred while K. was in her custody. HCHS denied Forsberg's claim, and Forsberg elected to pursue the matter through the Appeals Department in April 2002. Due to ongoing disputes and settlement efforts, consideration of this matter was postponed several times.
A hearing was held before the Appeals Department on May 7, 2003. In its order of June 19, 2003, the Appeals Department found that K.'s foster placement did not arise out of a "child protection assessment." Relying on Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 3(a)(5) (2002), the Appeals Department thus concluded that it lacked authority to hear Forsberg's claim.
Forsberg petitioned for judicial review in district court, challenging the Appeals Department's decision. At the review hearing, Forsberg also renewed her claims for foster care reimbursement and attorney fees. The district court received testimony on these issues.
The district court held that it had broad authority in equity to craft relief for Forsberg and ordered payment of foster care maintenance2 (referred to by the district court as "room and board" payments) for the period of January 12, 1998, to May 20, 1999; difficulty of care payments based on a difficulty of care rating of 70 points for the period of January 12, 1998, to December 10, 1999; "respite care" payments arising out of 20 overnight visits with M.; and $3,500 in reimbursements for K.'s psychotherapy in 1998 and 1999. In a subsequent order, the district court awarded Forsberg $12,517 in costs and attorney fees. This appeal followed.
HCHS contends that the Appeals Department lacks authority under its enabling statute to consider Forsberg's claims. Statutory interpretation poses a question of law, which we ordinarily review de novo. In re Application of N. States Power Co. for Approval of its 1998 Res. Plan, 604 N.W.2d 386, 390 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2000). But when a government agency is charged with the administration of a statute, we will accord deference to the agency's interpretation of that statute. Estate of Atkinson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 564 N.W.2d 209, 213 (Minn. 1997).
The jurisdiction of an administrative agency is entirely controlled by its enabling statute. McKee v. County of Ramsey, 310 Minn. 192, 195, 245 N.W.2d 460, 462 (1976). The enabling statute for the Appeals Department is Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 3(a) (2002 & Supp. 2003), which provides in relevant part that state agency hearings are available when "any person whose claim for foster care payment according to a placement of the child resulting from a child protection assessment under section 626.556 is denied or not acted upon with reasonable promptness, regardless of funding source[.]" Id. at subd. 3(a)(5).
The Appeals Department based its conclusion entirely on this clause, finding that K.'s foster placement with Forsberg did not result from "a child protection assessment under section 626.556."
Section 626.556 provides in relevant part:
(a) A person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being neglected or physically or sexually abused . . . or has been neglected or physically or sexually abused within the preceding three years, shall immediately report the information to the local [social services agency] or the county sheriff if the person is:
(1) a professional or professional's delegate who is engaged in the practice of the healing arts, social services, hospital administration, psychological or psychiatric treatment, child care, education, or law enforcement[.]
Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 3(a)(1) (2002 & Supp. 2003). Thus, if a person has knowledge of a child's circumstances and makes a professional judgment that the child is neglected or abused, that person has a duty to report these facts to an appropriate agency. S.L.D. v. Kranz, 498 N.W.2d 47, 52 (Minn. App. 1993). The allegations are assessed, and if they are substantiated, the relevant government agency proceeds with a child protection action that may later result in a foster placement. See Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10e (2002 & Supp. 2003); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.201, subd. 1(a)(2) (2002) (); Zahler v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 624 N.W.2d 297, 301-03 (Minn. App. 2001) (outlining procedures under Minn. Stat. § 626.556 (2000)), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2001).
In a dissolution or child custody proceeding, a family court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of a child. Minn. Stat. § 518.165, subds. 1, 2 (2002).3 The guardian ad litem has a duty to provide an independent assessment of the child's circumstances, and if necessary, "advocat[e] for appropriate community services." See id., subd. 2a(1), (2) (2002). Professional judgment is inherent in the execution of these duties. See In re Welfare of R.T., 364 N.W.2d 884, 887 (Minn. App. 1985) (). We conclude that a guardian ad litem, when on notice that a child is neglected or abused, is required to report to relevant authorities in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 3(a)(1).
If it is alleged that a child is in need of protection or services, the juvenile court must assess whether these allegations are proven by clear and convincing evidence or dismiss the action. Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subd. 1(a) (2002). To evaluate these allegations, the juvenile court may order an investigation from a social services agency. Minn. Stat. § 260C.157, subd. 1 (2002). If the juvenile court finds that the child is in need of protection or services, it may either place the child within the protective supervision of a social services agency or it may grant legal custody of the child to a social services or foster placement agency. Minn. Stat. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial