Staat, In re
| Decision Date | 03 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42404,42404 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 709,287 Minn. 501 |
| Parties | In re Welfare of Joseph and Paul STAAT, children. HENNEPIN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. Jerry STAAT, father, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In this proceeding to terminate a father's parental rights, an examination of all the surrounding facts and circumstances requires us to conclude that the lower court could infer an intent to abandon in the present case. Accordingly, its finding of abandonment is sustained by the evidence, regardless of whether the standard of proof required for the finding is a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing proof. It is apparent that the trial court based its decision to terminate parental rights on specific statutory grounds supported by ample evidence.
Smith, Marino & Becker and Luther A. Granquist, Minneapolis, for appellant.
George Scott, County Atty., Susanne C. Sedgwick, Asst. Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, WILLIAM P. MURPHY, OTIS, and JAMES F. MURPHY, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of Jerry Staat, father of Joseph and Paul Staat. The only question before this court is whether the evidence sustains the trial court's findings upon which the order was issued pursuant to Minn.St. 260.221(b)(1, 3).
The matter came on for hearing October 1, October 13, and October 31, 1969, in Hennepin County District Court--Juvenile Division--before the Honorable Lindsay G. Arthur, on the Hennepin County Welfare Department's petition to terminate the parental rights of Cynthia M. Staat, mother, and Jerry Lee Staat, father, to Joseph and Paul Staat.
On October 31, 1969, the trial court made the following findings:
'Mother for good cause consent(s) in writing.
'Abandonment by father.
'Basic care continuously refused; by father.'
The facts upon which the court based its decision are as follows: Joseph and Paul Staat were born February 22, 1967, to Cynthia Staat, who was at the time of their birth incarcerated in the State Reformatory for Women. Jerry Staat, the father, has been incarcerated in the State Reformatory for Men since December 7, 1967, serving a 0- to 5-year sentence for unlawful possession of narcotics. His sentence is due to expire in August 1971. He appeared before the Adult Correction Commission in April 1970, and it is this court's understanding that the hearing was continued until August 1970.
Jerry has had a history of violations of the law and has served sentences in various correctional institutions. On one occasion during parole from a sentence at the Minneapolis Workhouse, he absconded from the supervision of his parole officer.
The Staat children were conceived in April 1966. The record is not clear whether or not Jerry was incarcerated during this period. However, during this time Cynthia had been dating another man and suspected that Jerry might not be the father of the twins, and in August 1966 she wrote a letter to her husband informing him he was not their father. At the time of trial, however, she stated that the children were her husband's. Jerry does not now dispute this fact.
Jerry never saw the twins prior to his present sentencing in December 1967. He also denied paternity, stating to his parole officer during the summer of 1967 that he could not have been the father of the children since he was not around at the time of conception. He was in fact dating another woman who was pregnant by him. When his wife asked him in November 1967 if he was concerned over the children, he replied he was going to be a father with this girl friend.
From the time of their birth in February 1967 until September 1968, the twins were in foster placement. Cynthia attempted to care for them during a 6-week period commencing in September 1968. They were returned to foster care until February 1, 1969, whereupon Cynthia again attempted to care for them. Finding herself unable to provide proper care, she returned the children to the Hennepin County Welfare Department, which again placed them in foster care. Since the time of their birth until the time of the hearing, the twins had lived with their mother on these two occasions and had lived in four foster homes.
Jerry has seen his children only once. 1 Cynthia had to request special permission for this visit, since Jerry was using his regular visiting hours to see his girl friend. Prior to June 1969 he had never requested visits with his wife and children. He testified that after seeing his children he realized he was their father.
Jerry stated that he requested the Salvation Army to send the children a Christmas gift in 1968 and he also testified he sent one birthday card. However, his wife claimed that her husband did not send any birthday cards or Christmas presents.
Jerry has adjusted well at the reformatory. He has not been a disciplinary problem. He graduated from high school in June 1969 and has been head inmate at the institution's store. If paroled, he intends to enroll at the Minneapolis Vocational School. He stated that his plans for his children were to assume their custody when he was financially able, which, in his estimation, would be a minimum of 6 months following parole. However, the vocational program he had discussed with a Hennepin County Welfare Department worker would cover a period of at least a year and a half. This means it would be about another 2 years before he could assume custody of his children.
Minn.St. 260.221(b) sets out five grounds for termination of parental rights other than consent. The portions thereof referred to in the termination findings are:
'(1) That the parents have abandoned the child; or
'(3) That, although the parents are financially able, they have substantially and continuously neglected to provide the child with necessary subsistence, education, or other care necessary for his physical or mental health or morals or have neglected to pay for such subsistence, education or other care when legal custody is lodged with others.'
There is no evidence in the present case indicating that Jerry refused basic care for his children. A prerequisite for a violation of § 260.221(b)(3) is that the parents are financially able. In the instant case, the state has not proved Jerry's financial ability to care for his children. In fact, the Hennepin County Welfare Department caseworker stated:
'* * * There has never been any support as such from either (of the) parents because of their economic situation.'
In justifying an order terminating parental rights of a natural parent, a clear and specific finding which conforms to the statutory conditions for termination is of critical importance. See, In re Petition of Zerby, 280 Minn. 514, 160 N.W.2d 255. Since this was done in the present case with respect to a finding of basic care continuously refused, we can only assume that the court found as a fact that this ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interest of L.V., In re
...whom criminal act committed are factors to be considered in determining whether to terminate parental rights); In re Welfare of Staat, 287 Minn. 501, 178 N.W.2d 709 (1970) (incarceration may combine with other factors, such as neglect and withholding of parental affection, to support termin......
-
Sego, In re
... ... Cf. RCW 13.04.140. A father's inability to ... Page 469 ... perform his parental obligations because of imprisonment is bound up with the issue of parental fitness and child welfare. Imprisonment, per se, however, is insufficient to justify an order of permanent deprivation. In re Staat, 287 Minn. 501, 178 N.W.2d 709 (1970). On the other hand, the fact and cause of imprisonment are properly considered in resolving the issue of permanent deprivation. In re Staat, Supra, 178 N.W.2d at 713. See RCW 26.32.040(1). The court seeks to protect both the rights of the parent and the ... ...
-
In re Adoption of CDM, 94,879.
... ... In re Staat, 287 Minn. 501, 178 N.W.2d 709, 712 (1970) [Fact of imprisonment may combine with other factors such as parental neglect and a withholding of parental affection.] In re A.B.M., 17 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) [Abandonment focuses on the parties' intent taking into consideration all ... ...
-
Juvenile Appeal, In re
... ... 443] The trial court was careful to indicate that in its view imprisonment alone does not constitute abandonment, and in this it was correct. See Matter of Adoption of Cottrill, 388 So.2d 302, 305 (Fla.App.1980); Matter of Adoption of Herman, 406 N.E.2d 277, 279 (Ind.App.1980); Staat v. Hennepin County Welfare Board, 287 Minn. 501, 178 N.W.2d 709, 712-13 (1970); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 740, 513 P.2d 831 (1973). On the other hand, the inevitable restraints imposed by incarceration do not in themselves excuse a failure to make use of available though limited resources for ... ...