In re S.B.G.
| Docket Number | A22-0589 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2023 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
Travis J. Smith, Kayla M. Johnson, William C. Lundy, Smith &Johnson, Slayton, Minnesota, for appellant S.B.G.
Joseph M. Sanow, Nobles County Attorney, Worthington, Minnesota, for respondent Nobles County Community Service Agency.
Brooke Beskau Warg, Natalie Netzel, Mitchell Hamline School of Law Child Protection Clinic, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and
Mallory K. Stoll, Blahnik, Prchal &Stoll, PLLC, Prior Lake, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Institute to Transform Child Protection.
Took no part, Moore, III, J.
1. The juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction over cases involving the termination of parental rights of presumed fathers.
2. The juvenile court may terminate parental rights if a parent is convicted of an offense that requires registration as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd 1b(a) (2022); these offenses include convictions for both offenses enumerated in the predatory offender registration statute and non-enumerated offenses that arise out of the same circumstances as a charged enumerated offense.
Affirmed.
Appellant-father S.B.G. was convicted of an offense that arose out of the same circumstances as an offense enumerated in the predatory offender registration statute. While S.B.G. was incarcerated, respondent-mother, I.Q., gave birth to a child, H.Q. H.Q. was adjudicated as a child in need of protection or services. The juvenile court ordered genetic testing to determine paternity. S.B.G.'s genetic test confirmed that he is the child's biological father, but he was not adjudicated as the father. The social services agency petitioned to terminate S.B.G.'s parental rights because of his conviction for an offense that requires registration as a predatory offender. After a contested hearing, the district court, acting as a juvenile court, terminated S.B.G.'s parental rights. S.B.G. appealed the termination of his parental rights arguing, for the first time, that the juvenile court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights. S.B.G. also raised a statutory interpretation argument about the interplay between the child protection and predatory offender registration statutes. The court of appeals determined that the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, rejected S.B.G.'s statutory interpretation argument, and affirmed the juvenile court's termination of parental rights. We affirm.
In November 2019, the State charged S.B.G. with six counts arising out of his sexual conduct or communication with a minor; only counts two and six are relevant here. Count two charged S.B.G. with soliciting a child through electronic communication to engage in sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2a(1) (2022). This crime is an enumerated offense that requires registration as a predatory offender. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd 1b(a)(2)(v) (2022). Count six charged S.B.G. with distributing via electronic communication material that describes sexual conduct to a child in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2a(3) (2022). This offense is not listed in the predatory offender registration statute. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b (2022). S.B.G. pleaded guilty to count six, and the district court accepted his plea. The district court sentenced S.B.G. to 36 months' incarceration in December 2020.
I.Q gave birth to H.Q. on March 4, 2021. Respondent Nobles County Community Service Agency (the County) petitioned to have H.Q. adjudicated as a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) under the juvenile protection provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.001-.637 (2022).[1] The CHIPS petition listed both S.B.G. and another man as potential fathers and participants in the CHIPS petition and proceedings. In an order after an admit/deny hearing, the Nobles County District Court, acting as a juvenile court,[2] explained that the two alleged fathers had voluntarily agreed to complete genetic testing to determine H.Q.'s biological father and that "[e]xpedited child support proceedings ha[d] been initiated and paternity [could] also be established through that process."[3] The juvenile court adjudicated H.Q. as a CHIPS in April 2021. The juvenile court determined that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply.[4] In December 2021, following a review hearing, the juvenile court determined that S.B.G. "is the Father of [H.Q.]" and noted that "[p]aternity was established through DNA testing, showing Father's probability at 99.99%." The juvenile court removed the other alleged father from the proceedings and listed S.B.G. as H.Q.'s father.
Once the positive genetic test confirmed S.B.G. as H.Q.'s biological father, he became a presumed father, and the juvenile court changed S.B.G.'s status from a participant with limited rights to a party with full status in the CHIPS proceedings.[5] See Minn. Stat. § 260C.150, subd. 2(a) (2022) (). Although S.B.G. was never adjudicated as H.Q.'s father,[6] the record suggests that S.B.G. never contested the determination that he is H.Q.'s father.
In December 2021, the County petitioned to terminate S.B.G.'s parental rights in a separate court file. The petition requested termination because S.B.G. was convicted of an offense that arose "out of the same set of circumstances" as another charged offense that is enumerated in the predatory offender registration statute, requiring S.B.G. to register as a predatory offender. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a) ; Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(9) ().[7] The County argued that termination would be in H.Q.'s best interests, given S.B.G.'s criminal record and because I.Q. was the custodial parent, so H.Q. would not be displaced by termination of S.B.G.'s parental rights.
Because the petition stated a prima facie case that S.B.G. committed an offense that would require registration as a predatory offender, the juvenile court relieved the County of its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification between S.B.G. and H.Q. See Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(6) (2022) ().
In March 2022, the juvenile court held a contested termination of parental rights proceeding. The juvenile court received eleven exhibits without objection. Both the County social worker and the assigned guardian ad litem testified for the County; S.B.G. and his mother testified on his behalf.
The social worker testified that S.B.G. stated an interest in being involved with H.Q., but S.B.G. did not presently have a bond with H.Q. and had not taken action that demonstrated an intent to maintain a relationship. The social worker testified that S.B.G. could not provide a stable environment for H.Q. when he was released from prison and that she was concerned about H.Q.'s "safety and [S.B.G.'s] ability to safely parent her," given his admitted lack of parenting skills, his criminal history, and the child's vulnerability. Similarly, the guardian ad litem did not believe that S.B.G. could keep H.Q. safe from harm or provide H.Q. with a stable and permanent living environment and also testified that S.B.G.'s parental rights should be terminated. The guardian ad litem testified that she agreed with the conclusion in her report, which stated that termination of S.B.G.'s parental rights would be in H.Q.'s best interests.
S.B.G. did not dispute the juvenile court's finding that he is H.Q.'s father and affirmatively testified that he is H.Q.'s father. S.B.G. testified that he wanted to spend time with H.Q. but noted that he did not have parenting experience so he would proceed slowly in building a relationship with H.Q.
In April 2022, the juvenile court terminated S.B.G.'s parental rights. The juvenile court concluded that S.B.G. was convicted of a crime that will require registration as a predatory offender based on his December 2020 conviction because it arose from the "same or similar circumstances" as a charged offense that is enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a)(2)(v). Accordingly, the juvenile court concluded that the County proved by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for termination existed. See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(9) (). The juvenile court also concluded that the County proved by clear and convincing evidence that terminating S.B.G.'s parental rights was in H.Q.'s best interests.
S.B.G appealed. In re Welfare of Child of S.B.G., 981 N.W.2d 224 (Minn.App. 2022). S.B.G. argued for the first time on appeal that the juvenile court "did not have subject-matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial