In re T. K. H.

• Docket Number: A25-1355
• Decision Date: 09 February 2026
• Citation: In re T. K. H., A25-1355 (Minn. App. Feb 09, 2026)
• Parties: In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: T. K. H., B. M. P., G. J. S., Parents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

1

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: T. K. H., B. M. P., G. J. S., Parents.

No. A25-1355

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

February 9, 2026

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Wadena County District Court File No. 80-JV-25-76

T.K.H., Cambridge, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, Amanda N. Heifort, Assistant County Attorney, Center City, Minnesota (for respondent Wadena County Human Services)

Angela J. Sonsalla, Perham, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem Mary Weaver)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. ^[*]

COCHRAN, Judge

Appellant mother challenges the district court's order denying her motion for a new trial following the termination of her parental rights. Appellant argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion because she demonstrated that (1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which violated her right to a fair trial;

2

(2) she was denied her constitutional right to due process; (3) fraud on the court occurred through false testimony and fabricated reports at trial; and (4) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order terminating her parental rights due to improper venue. Because appellant has not met her burden to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for a new trial, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant T.K.H. is the mother of two children—Child 1, born in 2016, and Child 2, born in 2020. The children have different fathers. The respective fathers of the children, G.J.S. and B.M.P., take no part in this appeal.

Respondent Wadena County Human Services (WCHS) became involved in the spring of 2024 when law enforcement received reports regarding mother and the children. Those reports expressed concerns that mother and her children were living out of mother's vehicle and that mother had a history of drug use. The reports also expressed concern about mother's mental health.

Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) Petition

On April 23, 2024, Child 1 and Child 2 were placed into emergency protective care at the request of WCHS based on concerns that the children were "found in surroundings or conditions which endanger the child[ren]'s health or welfare." On the welfare-hold request form, WCHS noted that mother was a "flight risk" and that she "[a]bsconded from child protection in Illinois ...." The form also noted that Child 1, then age seven, was not enrolled in school and that mother tested positive for controlled substances on March 14, 2024.

3

On April 25, 2024, WCHS filed a CHIPS petition. The petition raised concerns about mother and the children living out of mother's car, mother's chemical dependency, mother's neglect of the children, and Child 1's absence from school. That same day, mother applied for, and the court appointed, an attorney (Attorney 1) to represent mother. The following day, an emergency protective care hearing was held, and the district court ordered the out-of-home placement of the children. Shortly after the hearing, the county developed case plans for the children and mother that included visitation as well as measures to address the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement. Mother was involved in the development of the plans.

On October 29, 2024, the district court held a trial on the CHIPS petition. Mother did not attend the trial. Following the trial, the district court filed an order concluding that WCHS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the children were in need of protection or services. The district court based its decision on evidence that mother "has struggled with her mental health, chemical use, and homelessness and as a result has been unable to meet the [c]hildren's basic needs for food, shelter, education and other required care." The district court ordered that WCHS "shall retain custody" of the children and approved the continued out-of-home placement of the children. The court also ordered WCHS to develop updated case plans with mother and ordered mother to complete a comprehensive chemical use assessment (with WCHS and the guardian ad litem (GAL) listed as collateral contacts), follow all resulting recommendations, and abstain from moodaltering substances, among other terms.

4

Following the trial, mother agreed to updated versions of the case plans (one for each child). Mother's case plans included five goals: address mother's substance use, stabilize mother's mental health, maintain safe and stable independent housing, improve and maintain mother's relationship with her children, and ensure the children's safety and wellbeing. Both case plans required, among other terms, that mother: (a) complete a chemical use assessment with WCHS and follow all resulting recommendations, (b) abstain from substance use unless prescribed, (c) comply with random drug testing, (d) develop a relapse prevention plan, (e) remain law abiding, (f) sign all necessary releases to ensure open communication, (g) attend visits with the children as scheduled by WCHS, (h) complete a parenting education class, (i) participate in family therapy with the children's support system, (j) demonstrate a period of at least six months of sobriety and follow a relapse prevention plan to ensure the safety of her children, (k) complete a diagnostic mental health assessment and successfully follow the recommendations thereof, (1) reduce mental health symptoms and demonstrate stability for a period of at least six months, and (m) address and take care of physical and mental health needs per doctor recommendations.

On December 13, mother obtained private counsel (Attorney 2) to represent her. A permanency progress hearing was held on December 17, at which the district court found that mother had not made substantial progress on her case plan.^[1]

5

Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) Petition

On January 29, 2025, WCHS filed a TPR petition to involuntarily terminate mother's parental rights to both children, citing the following statutory bases: (1) that mother has abandoned the children, (2) that mother has substantially, continuously, or repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed upon her by the parent and child relationship, (3) that mother is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child relationship, (4) that mother failed to correct the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement despite reasonable efforts by the county, and (5) that the children are neglected and in foster care.^[2] See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(1)-(4), (7) (2024). Mother entered a denial and requested a change of venue, which the district court later denied. On March 26, the district court approved WCHS's request to cease reunification efforts with mother.

On April 30, Attorney 2 requested leave to withdraw as mother's counsel. Attorney 2 cited differences with mother about "how this matter should be litigated" and he noted that, despite Attorney 2's "numerous" attempts to contact mother, "she has not returned or accepted [his] phone calls." Nonetheless, the district court still required Attorney 2 to attend a pretrial hearing on May 2. At the hearing, mother indicated that she wished to discharge Attorney 2 and understood that discharge of Attorney 2 would not be a basis for continuing the TPR trial scheduled for May 5. But, prior to the start of trial, mother filed a request for a court-appointed attorney, and at the scheduled start of trial,

6

WCHS supported a continuance to ensure the protection of mother's rights. The district court appointed a new attorney for mother—Attorney 3.

The trial was held on July 16. Mother was represented by Attorney 3. At trial, WCHS presented testimony from a WCHS child protection social worker and the GAL for both children. Mother did not testify, but the court admitted a number of exhibits offered by mother's attorney and stipulated to by the parties. At the time of trial, the children had been placed out of the home for 449 days.

At trial, the social worker testified about her work with mother and the children beginning with the CHIPS case. The social worker testified both children had needs that were different or more particularized than the average child. According to the social worker, Child 1 had nightmares and was in "therapy weekly to . . . help process . . . whatever he's going through." The social worker indicated that, while Child 1 had struggled academically and "almost didn't get to go into 2nd grade" due to serious deficiencies in his math and reading levels, his academic performance had improved since his out-of-home placement began. She also testified that Child 2 had behavioral problems, including sensory issues and emotional outbursts. He also had "quite a few cavities" and needed eyeglasses.

In addition, the social worker testified to mother's substance use issues and her compliance with the requirements of the case plans relating to substance use. The social worker testified that mother completed a chemical use assessment in accordance with the case plans but did not list WCHS as a collateral contact as required. Mother also refused required drug testing on several occasions, tested positive for methamphetamine and

7

amphetamine on multiple occasions, admitted to using THC and methamphetamine, and was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on January 4, 2025. Because of her drug use while on her case plans, mother was required to complete additional chemical assessments. She completed a second chemical use assessment in November 2024 and started outpatient treatment for chemical dependency, but she was discharged after two weeks due to being "unsuccessful" in the program. At that time, she stated that she did not need to be in treatment. She then...