In re Welfare of Children of R. T.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-1458 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. T. and J. T., Parents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Hennepin County District Court
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth Johnston, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department)
Kassius Benson, Chief Hennepin County Public Defender, Paul J. Maravigli, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents R.T. and J.T.)
Alex Brusilovsky, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem Catherine Stratton)
Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
Appellant county department challenges the denial of the petition to terminate respondents' parental rights to two children, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by determining that (1) respondent-parents are not palpably unfit, (2) appellant department did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and (3) termination is not in the best interests of the children. Appellant also contends the district court's findings of fact are inadequate. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding respondents are not palpably unfit to care for the children. But because the district court did not otherwise make sufficient findings for us to review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Respondent R.T. is the mother of three children—child 1, born in 2002; child 2, born in 2013; and child 3, born in 2017. Respondent J.T. is the father of child 2 and child 3. Both parents have mild-to-moderate cognitive disabilities. Mother has Persistent Depressive Disorder and a measured IQ of 71. Father has been diagnosed with an unspecified cognitive disability with a measured IQ of 68. The children also have developmental disabilities of varying severity.1
Mother has been involved with child protection agencies since 2004. In 2013, appellant Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department (the department) first investigated allegations of neglect and abuse. Since 2015, the department has found maltreatment occurred on five separate occasions.
This termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) proceeding had its genesis in early 2017, with reports of medical neglect and unclean conditions in the home. The department found the family home littered with garbage, clutter, and animal waste; child 1 did not have necessary prescription medicine and medical equipment; and child 2 had unmet medical concerns. In April 2017, the department filed a petition alleging child 1 and child 2 needed protection or services (CHIPS). The two children were adjudicated CHIPS four months later, and legal custody was transferred to the department. The children have remained in court-ordered out-of-home placement since the CHIPS petition was filed.2
The department developed case plans to reunite parents with the children. These plans required parents to maintain safe and suitable housing, complete parenting assessments and psychological evaluations, follow all treatment recommendations, and attend supervised visits with the children. Father's plan also required him to complete an anger-management program. The parenting assessments for both parents recommended parenting education as well as individual and couple's therapy. And mother's parenting assessment referred her to an adult rehabilitative mental health services (ARMHS) worker for assistance with daily tasks.
Parents made incremental progress on their case plans. Mother initially cooperated with her ARMHS worker to better maintain the family home, get to her therapy sessions, and stick to a budget. Father attended an initial anger-management session, but the service provider determined its program was not appropriate given his limited cognitive skills.
But both parents struggled to fully participate in the programming and gain insight from it. By November 2017, parents had not followed through on referrals for developmental disability (DD) services, and had lost their housing due to father's angry outburst in front of the property caretaker. Parents found an apartment in February 2018, but had trouble paying the security deposit. Mother refused assistance with creating a new budget, and parents experienced continued difficulties with paying rent. Mother stopped working with her ARMHS provider in February 2018, and did not follow through on the department's referral to another program to access similar services.
This pattern of inconsistent case-plan compliance continued into 2019. Mother's cooperation with DD and ARMHS services was intermittent. Father struggled to find anger-management services despite several subsequent department referrals. And their home alternated between being relatively clean and being cluttered and unsafe.
Parents consistently attended visits with the children. Teresa Menti of Family in Transition Services supervised the visits. From the outset, Menti reported concerns about parents' ability to safely care for the children on their own. She frequently needed to guide parents on how to meet the children's basic needs during visits, and parents did not demonstrate they could retain and implement this guidance between visits. During in-home visits, Menti did not observe consistent progress in maintaining cleanliness and safetywithout prompting. At Menti's suggestion, the department eventually retained her to also provide parenting-education services to parents.
The department first petitioned for TPR in June 2018. Following the admit/deny hearing, the district court concluded the petition did "not support a prima facie" case for termination. The district court specifically found that the department had "not made reasonable efforts towards reunification," largely based on its failure to adequately access and provide services to meet child 2's "mental, behavioral, and special health care needs." The case reverted back to a CHIPS proceeding.
The department filed the present petition in August 2019, seeking to terminate parents' rights to child 2 and child 3.3 The department cited parents' inconsistent compliance with their case plans, noting they still struggled to maintain a clean and safe home for the children, faced eviction on multiple occasions, and have either refused to attend or canceled appointments with referred service providers. The department also noted the significant needs of the children, citing concerns that parents will be unable to meet these needs due to their own challenges. The department alleged three statutory bases for termination: (1) that the parents are "palpably unfit" to parent the children, (2) that "reasonable efforts . . . have failed to correct the conditions leading" to the children's out-of-home placement, and (3) that the children are "neglected and in foster care." See Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds. 1(b)(4), (5), (8) (2020).
The district court held two hearings on August 14, 2019—a permanency review hearing, and an admit/deny hearing on the TPR and custody-transfer petitions. In its permanency review order, the district court found that the department was making reasonable efforts to reunite child 2 and child 3 with parents.4 At the hearing, parents moved to dismiss the TPR petition on the ground that the department was not making reasonable efforts to reunite the family. The district court denied the motion, finding the petition stated a prima facie case for termination.5
The district court conducted a trial on the petition on March 11 and 12, August 26, and September 1, 2020. Mother testified that she was not told why her children were placed in foster care and could not recall why the department became involved with her family. She disputed the reported conditions of their home in 2017, stating she "would never live like that." She denied having any mental-health issues, except for being diagnosed with ADHD as a child. And she reported that she did not need assistance with her daily tasks, saying that she "can do a lot of things on [her] own." When questioned about receivingARMHS services, mother stated she was "not really sure what they do," and that she stopped working with her ARMHS worker because "[h]e was not really helping me very well." She also testified that she has not been able to get a consistent DD worker, because "they kind of all quit after the first month."
With respect to the children, mother said she is aware of their developmental delays. She acknowledged their need to attend medical appointments and take certain medications, stating she would administer the medications if trained to do so. Mother also stated she has learned parenting skills from Menti, that she and father did not "really need a lot of help from her anymore," and that she believes she is a better parent now than when the children were removed from her care.
As to parents' ability to provide a clean and safe home for the children, mother testified that they were evicted at the end of 2019 because their landlord did not like them. She agreed that living with father's mother and sister is not a permanent housing option. But she explained that there is no timeline for moving into their own home, and that their efforts to work with the assigned housing-assistance worker have not been successful.
Father acknowledged that they had difficulty paying rent in the past, but that they tried to budget accordingly. He also confirmed that there is no timeline for moving out of his mother and sister's home, but that they are actively looking for their own place. Father testified that he is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial