In re A. M. L.

• Decision Date: 24 October 2022
• Docket Number: A22-0569
• Parties: In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. M. L., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. M. L., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian.

No. A22-0569

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

October 24, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Carver County District Court File No. 10-JV-20-357

Rachel L. Osband, Fiddler Osband LLC, Edina, Minnesota (for appellants A.M.C. and R.C.) ^[1]

Jenna M. Eisenmenger, Georgie K. Brattland, Heimerl & Lammers LLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondents T.S. and S.S.)

Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Jennifer L. Christensen, Assistant County Attorney, Chaska, Minnesota (for respondent Carver County Health and Human Services)

Dianne Schafer, Chaska, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.

1

WHEELOCK, JUDGE

By order filed after an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied appellants' motion for an adoptive placement of a child. On appeal from that order, appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by determining they failed to prove that respondent-county acted unreasonably in not placing the child with them. We affirm.

FACTS

This case involves the permanent placement of J.J.B. (the child), born in November 2020. The child's parents had two older children-A.M.C. and A.L.-born in May 2014 and August 2017, respectively.

Background

Both older children had been placed outside of the home by Olmsted County Health and Human Services. The mother's parental rights to both older children were involuntarily terminated, and the father's parental rights were voluntarily terminated. A.L. died at a young age. A.M.C. was eventually placed with the appellants in this case, A.C. and R.C., who adopted A.M.C. in April 2018. Because A.C. is the sister of their maternal grandmother, A.C. is the great aunt of both A.M.C. and the child. A.C. and R.C. live in Colorado with A.M.C.

Shortly after his birth, the child was screened in for a 24-hour investigation by respondent Carver County Health and Human Services (the county) and, in December 2020, was placed in an out-of-home foster-care placement with his maternal grandparents. The child and the child's mother had been living with his maternal grandparents, and the

2

child's mother was removed from the home to allow for the placement to occur. The county continued to work on a case plan and visitation with the child's mother and to make reasonable efforts toward reunification with both parents.

The county identified respondents S.S. and T.S. as relatives living nearby who could provide respite care for the child while he was in the grandparents' care. T.S. is a cousin to the child through the child's grandfather. S.S. and T.S. began providing respite care in January 2021. Around this time, A.C. and R.C. informed the county of their interest in caring for the child as a foster-to-adopt placement.

The county initiated a relative search and sent an initial letter to identified relatives on February 3, 2021. Both couples, A.C. and R.C. and S.S. and T.S., responded that they were foster-care options and permanent-placement options for the child. The county began the process of compiling an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)^[2]request for A.C. and R.C. in April 2021. In May 2021, the county received information from the mother's attorney that the mother wished to discuss a consent-to-adopt agreement with S.S. and T.S. Following her failure to appear at a scheduled permanency hearing in July 2021, however, the mother's rights to the child were involuntarily terminated by a finding of default. Based on concerns about the child's safety in the grandparents' care,

3

the county removed the child from his foster placement with his grandparents in June 2021 and placed him in the home of S.S. and T.S. The father's rights to the child were involuntarily terminated by a finding of default in late August 2021.

Prior to the termination of the father's parental rights, the county requested a foster-to-adopt home study for A.C. and R.C. from the relevant agency in Colorado. In September 2021, while that request was pending, the county received S.S. and T.S.'s completed home study. In October 2021, the county signed an adoption-placement agreement with S.S. and T.S. On November 1, 2021, the county submitted the adoption-placement agreement to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). And on the following day, November 2, 2021, the county received the completed home study from the Colorado agency, recommending approval of A.C. and R.C. as an option for the child's placement.

District Court Proceedings and the Evidentiary Hearing

In October 2021, A.C. and R.C. moved to intervene in the case and for video visitation with the child, and the district court held a post-permanency review hearing and a hearing on the motion for intervention. At the same time, S.S. and T.S. also moved to intervene in the case. A.C. and R.C. then notified the court and parties that they intended to file a motion for adoptive placement. The district court granted both motions for intervention and set a hearing date for A.C. and R.C.'s motion for adoptive placement.

In December 2021, the district court held a nonevidentiary hearing on A.C. and R.C.'s motion for adoptive placement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(a)(2) (Supp. 2021). At that hearing, the district court ruled that A.C. and R.C. made a prima facie

4

showing that the county had been unreasonable in failing to make the requested adoptive placement. The district court then set an evidentiary hearing, as required by statute, to address whether the county had, in fact, been unreasonable in failing to make the requested placement. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(c)-(e) (Supp. 2021).

The district court held the evidentiary hearing over several days throughout January and February 2022, during which it heard the testimony of the county caseworkers, the guardian ad litem (GAL), and extended family members, including S.S., T.S., A.C., and R.C. An expert in early-childhood attachment and an expert in sibling relationships in foster care and adoption also testified. The district court heard testimony about the caseworkers' involvement with the potential placements, the relationship difficulties between A.C. and the child's maternal grandmother and other members of A.M.C.'s extended family, and the lack of contact between A.M.C. and her grandmother.

In April 2022, the district court filed an order denying A.C. and R.C.'s motion. The order addressed the application of the Minnesota Foster Care Sibling Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 260C.008 (2020), to this case and included individualized findings on the needs of the child to ensure his best interests are met pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260C.212, subd. 2 (Supp. 2021). The district court determined first that A.C. and R.C. failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the county was unreasonable in failing to place the child with them for adoption and second that the county had acted reasonably in not placing the child with them. The district court also ruled that it was in the child's best interests to remain in S.S. and T.S.'s care while his adoption with them is finalized, that the child should actually remain in S.S. and T.S.'s care while his adoption is finalized, and that the

5

child shall have contact with A.C., R.C., and A.M.C. pursuant to a written contact plan agreed to by the parties.

A.C. and R.C. appeal.

DECISION

A.C. and R.C. assert both (1) that the record does not support the district court's determination that the county properly considered appellants as a placement option for the child and (2) that the district court erred by not finding that the child should be placed with them. In addition, A.C. and R.C. argue that the district court misapplied the law when assessing the county's reasonableness and misapplied Minnesota's sibling-preference law by not placing the child with A.C. and R.C., who had already adopted his sibling. We disagree.

We begin by reviewing the statutory framework for adoptive placements. Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6 (Supp. 2021),^[3] establishes the process for motions and hearings to order adoptive placement. "[A]fter the district court orders [a] child under the guardianship of the commissioner of human services, . . . a relative or the child's foster parent may file a motion for an order for adoptive placement . . . if the relative or the child's foster parent" has an adoptive home study approving the relative or foster parent to be an adoptive-placement option. Id., subd. 6(a). If the movant makes a prima facie showing

6

that the agency has been unreasonable in failing to make the requested adoptive placement, the district court conducts an evidentiary hearing. Id., subd. 6(b), (c).

Section 260C.607 requires that, at any evidentiary hearing that may be necessary, the agency first present evidence explaining why it did not make an adoptive placement with the movant. Id., subd. 6(d). "The moving party then has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency has been unreasonable in failing to make the adoptive placement." Id. If the district court finds that the agency was unreasonable in failing to make the adoptive placement and that the relative or foster parent requesting placement is "the most suitable adoptive home to meet the child's needs" based on the statutory best-interests factors, the district court "may order the responsible social services agency to make an adoptive placement in the home of the relative or the child's foster parent." Id., subd. 6(e).

We review a district court's decision after an evidentiary hearing on a requested adoptive placement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6, for an abuse of discretion. See id. (stating district...