Matter of Welfare of Child of T.M.A.

• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: EDE, Judge
• Citation: 11 N.W.3d 346
• Docket Number: A24-0171
• Decision Date: 09 September 2024
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF: T.M.A. and M. J. R., Parents.

11 N.W.3d 346

In the MATTER OF the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF: T.M.A. and M. J. R., Parents.

A24-0171

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed September 9, 2024

[11 N.W.3d 351]

Itasca County District Court, File No. 31-JV-23-1873

Jennifer L. Thompson, JLT Law & Mediation, Litchfield, Minnesota (for appellant-father T.M.A.)

Jacob P. Fauchald, Itasca County Attorney, Michael J. Haig, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent Itasca County Health and Human Services)

Rachel Hughes, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Schmidt, Judge.

[11 N.W.3d 352]

OPINION

EDE, Judge

In this appeal from an order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of appellant’s child, appellant argues (1) that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the transfer-of-custody order and (2) that the order violates appellant’s procedural and substantive due-process rights. We affirm.

FACTS

Prior to January 2024, appellant T.M.A. (father) had sole legal and physical custody of his son (the child), who was born in 2007 and has type 1 diabetes.

Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) Proceedings

In July 2022, Itasca County Social Services Agency (the agency) filed a CHIPS petition. A district court ruled that the petition alleged a prima facie case of endangerment and that there was factual support to order removal of the child from father’s custody on an ex parte emergency basis. The allegations included information that medical providers at a hospital found the child to be malnourished and exhibiting symptoms consistent with high blood sugar levels. Several months later, the district court granted the agency’s motion to dismiss the petition.

On November 7, 2022, the agency filed another CHIPS petition. The same day, the district court in that matter held an emergency protective-care hearing. Neither parent appeared. The district court again ruled that the agency had made a prima facie showing that the child was in need of protection or services. In addition, the district court determined that it was contrary to the welfare of the child to be returned home and that placement outside the home was in the child’s best interests.

The district court held a pretrial conference in December 2022. Again, neither parent appeared. Through default proceedings held in father’s absence,¹ the district court adjudicated the child to be in need of protection or services under Minnesota Statutes section 260C.007, subdivisions 6(3), (8), and (9) (2022). The district court approved an out-of-home-placement plan (case plan) and directed the agency to implement it. The case plan set forth several tasks for father to complete. Father was to remain sober, submit to random drug testing, complete a chemical-health evaluation, permit announced and unannounced visits, participate in mental-health services, contact his social worker weekly, and ensure that the child was attending school.

In May 2023, the district court held a permanency progress review hearing. Following that hearing, the district court filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order in which it found that father had made no progress on the tasks outlined in the case plan. Father had failed to submit to random drug tests, complete a chemical-health evaluation and follow any resulting recommendations, permit visits to his home, and maintain safe, stable, and chemically free permanent housing for himself and the child. The district court determined that it was appropriate for the agency to file a permanency petition.

Permanency Proceedings

In July 2023, the agency petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights. After an admit/deny hearing, the district court ruled that the agency had made a prima facie showing that, following the child’s

[11 N.W.3d 353]

placement outside the home, reasonable efforts, under the direction of the court, had failed to correct the conditions leading to the child’s placement. In August 2023, the agency filed an amended petition requesting that—rather than terminate father’s parental rights—the district court transfer permanent legal and physical custody of the child to proposed custodians, who are the child’s relatives and with whom the child was placed after the child’s court-ordered removal from father’s custody. The agency also filed a social worker’s affidavit that outlined the factual basis for the agency’s request, which we summarize as follows.

The social worker asserted that the best interests of the child would be served by a transfer of custody for these reasons: the child needed a caregiver who could meet his needs on a consistent basis; the child had medical, chemical-health, and mental-health needs that required consistent follow-up appointments; and the child needed a caregiver who was able to demonstrate safe and stable behaviors, as well as provide constant guidance and oversight for the child’s diabetic care. The social worker detailed concerns that father lacked knowledge about diabetes and that father did not understand how to ensure that the child’s diabetic needs were met.

The social worker noted that, after the district court placed the child outside the home, father was unwilling to engage in reunification planning or compliance with the case plan to remedy the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement. The social worker also described offering services to father several times, which father declined based on his belief that he did not need additional support. And the social worker said that father was unresponsive to calls or text messages throughout the case and was unwilling to work with the agency to assess what steps he could take to reunify with the child.

In addition, the social worker discussed her meetings with the child throughout 2023. According to the affidavit, the child stated during each meeting that he supported his placement outside the home and would like to stay with his proposed custodians. The child also said that he felt well cared for by the custodians and that “his diabetes was managed better than it had ever been[.]” And although the child was hospitalized because of diabetes-related complications in May 2023, the affidavit asserted that one of the child’s custodians immediately responded to the child’s needs, attended all doctor appointments, and participated in diabetic-education meetings.

The permanency matter proceeded to trial in September 2023. On the first day of trial, father moved the district court; for a continuance because he had “insufficient time to review documents.” The district court denied father’s request.

The agency presented testimony from the prospective custodians, a school-based therapist, the social worker, and the child’s mother. Father presented testimony from the child’s step-grandfather, the child’s paternal grandfather, the child’s paternal grandmother, and father’s lifelong friend. The district court also heard testimony from father, the child, and the child’s guardian ad litem.

Father testified that, under the Constitution, he has “the right to not contract with an agency that is in direct violation of [his] rights.” Father claimed that “the agency’s contract offer”—referring to a chemical-health component of the case plan—“was unreasonable.” He also admitted that he was unwilling to communicate with the social worker about the case plan.

[11 N.W.3d 354]

In October 2023, the district court filed an order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of the child to the proposed custodians. But the district court deferred finalization of the order to determine eligibility of the proposed custodians for Northstar kinship assistance, which “provides medical coverage and reimbursement of nonrecurring expenses associated with obtaining permanent legal and physical custody of a child …. ” In re Welfare of Child of T.M.A., 2 N.W.3d 328, 329 n.l (Minn. App. 2024). The district court explained that it would later hold a hearing to review the status of the Northstar kinship assistance determinations. Id. at 329.

In the transfer-of-custody order, the district court explained its decision that transferring custody was in the best interests of the child. The district court made specific findings supporting its best-interests determination, including that the child’s “current functioning and behaviors [had] improved since residing in the foster home” and that the “foster parents [had] worked to gain the specialized knowledge necessary to best support the child’s ongoing diabetic condition.” The district court also made specific factual findings about the steps that the agency took to reunify the child with father, determining that the agency’s “continued efforts to engage [f]ather in working the [case plan] constituted ‘reasonable efforts’ pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes section 260C.517, subdivision (a)(2) (2022),] where [f]ather repeatedly refused to participate or offer any evidence that the allegations raised by the CHIPS petition had been remedied within the home.” Moreover, the district court found that the agency “continued to try and engage [f]ather in the [case plan] throughout the life of the case” and that the agency “did all that it could do to involve [f]ather in reunification efforts.” And the district court determined that there “was no evidence [that] any of the conditions which led to the out-of-home placement were corrected … so that the child [could] safely return home.”

Before the district court finalized its order, and while its determination of eligibility for Northstar kinship assistance remained pending, father appealed. Id. at 329-30. We dismissed that appeal in a special term opinion, concluding that father had appealed from an order that was neither final nor appealable. Id. at 330-31. In January 2024, following our dismissal of father’s first appeal, the district court vacated the deferment it had ordered and deemed its October 2023 order final.

Fat...