Welfare of J.A., Matter of

Decision Date19 November 1985
Docket NumberNo. C1-85-592,C1-85-592
Citation377 N.W.2d 69
PartiesIn the Matter of the WELFARE OF J.A., a minor.
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. The trial court order terminating D.A.'s parental rights was adequately supported by the evidence.

2. The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to admit testimony relating to D.A.'s efforts to comply with the court ordered treatment plan.

James L. Berg, St. Louis Park, for appellant.

Marcia Rowland, Carver County Atty., Virginia Palmer, Asst. County Atty., Chaska, for respondent.

Nancy Platto, Chaska, Guardian Ad Litem.

Heard, considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and RANDALL and CRIPPEN, JJ.

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

D.A. appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights to her son, J.A., pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 260.221(b)(5) and (b)(7), following an adjudication of dependency and neglect. We affirm.

FACTS

D.A. was referred to Carver County Community Social Services prior to J.A.'s birth. While pregnant with J.A., D.A. attempted suicide and otherwise threatened to harm herself if she did not get medication she wanted for her migraine headaches. D.A. has a history of migraines, as well as depression, emotional problems, chemical abuse, and alcohol abuse. D.A. has been on general assistance throughout the course of these proceedings.

Following J.A.'s birth February 27, 1982, J.A. spent several weeks in the hospital because he was born prematurely and was underweight. While he was in the hospital, D.A. attempted to forcibly remove him.

On April 24, 1982, J.A. was admitted to St. Francis Hospital for observation of bruises on the right side of his head. The hospital staff observed additional older bruises on other parts of J.A.'s body and suspected child abuse. On April 24, 1982, D.A. called her doctor and told him she had a severe migraine headache and wanted to die.

That evening D.A. attempted to forcibly remove J.A. from the hospital. At the time she was under the influence of barbituates, and she assaulted a nurse. J.A. was placed in a foster home after his release from the hospital. D.A. was placed on a medical hold until August 29, 1982, when she appeared in court for DWI sentencing.

On June 9, 1983, D.A.'s probation officer informed Community Social Services that D.A. had threatened to kill herself and J.A. She repeated the threat to her attorney who reported it to the sheriff.

In October 1982, the trial court determined J.A. was neglected. The court transferred legal custody to Carver County for foster care, ordered psychological and chemical assessments of D.A., and ordered D.A. to meet with social services to prepare a treatment plan.

D.A. twice attempted to remove J.A. from his foster home during supervised visitations. The second attempt culminated in a high-speed car chase.

In November 1982, D.A. threatened her social worker, and a new worker was assigned to work with her.

The court-ordered meeting between D.A. and social services to set up D.A.'s treatment plan took place January 14, 1983, after D.A.'s psychological evaluation was complete. In addition to social service personnel, Dr. Boutin, a court appointed psychiatrist, and Dr. Campbell, a licensed consulting psychologist chosen by D.A.'s attorney, were present.

The group devised a plan that included outpatient therapy, group therapy, and chemical dependency evaluation and treatment. The plan also called for supervised visitation with J.A. with the provisions that D.A. neither attempt to remove J.A. from his foster home nor engage in abusive or threatening behavior during visitation. The plan required D.A. to remain law abiding and abstain from the use of chemicals and provided that if D.A. should fail to comply, she would enter long-term treatment at Willmar State Hospital. The plan required D.A.'s signature as her commitment to abide by its terms.

D.A. initially refused to sign the plan, but she eventually signed it after the county attorney moved for court-ordered compliance. At this point D.A.'s court-appointed attorney withdrew because of D.A.'s verbal abuse. Her new attorney represented her when she signed an agreement that the plan would go into effect August 31, 1983, and be reviewed November 30, 1983. The plan was incorporated into a trial court order, including the requirement, conditioned upon D.A.'s "compliance with each and every term" of the plan, that D.A. "be admitted to and complete long-term inpatient treatment at a facility such as Willmar State Hospital as a condition of J.A.'s return to her custody."

Due to medical problems, as well as a lack of money to buy gas for her car, D.A. had trouble getting to her therapy sessions with Dr. Campbell. Her attendance at therapy sessions was sporadic, and eventually Dr. Campbell refused to see her.

D.A.'s visitation with J.A. was also sporadic. The county claims she canceled over half her visits during December 1983, and January 1984. In February 1984, social services terminated D.A.'s visitation with J.A.

The court, on January 30, 1984, found D.A. had failed to comply with the plan for treatment contacts and visitation and ordered her to enter Willmar State Hospital for long term inpatient treatment. D.A. refused to enter Willmar State Hospital. She offered to enter an inpatient chemical dependency treatment program in Carver County, but the court did not accept her offer as compliance with the treatment plan.

On April 10, 1984, social services filed a petition to terminate D.A.'s parental rights. The matter was heard on November 1. Dr. Boutin, the court appointed psychiatrist, testified that D.A. suffers from a character disorder resistant to change. She further testified that D.A.'s impulsiveness, poor judgment, and antisocial behavior would put J.A. at risk. She stated that D.A.'s prognosis, even with long term treatment, was poor. Dr. Campbell testified that without D.A.'s cooperation, other treatment programs would be ineffective. Both Drs. Boutin and Campbell recommended termination of D.A.'s parental rights.

The court refused to admit D.A.'s testimony as to why she had been unable to keep her appointments with Dr. Campbell and about her visitation with J.A. The court sustained the guardian ad litem's objections based on relevancy, agreeing that once J.A. had been determined dependent and neglected and in foster care, and once D.A. had signed a treatment plan and missed required treatment and visitation contacts, evidence relating to visitation with J.A. and D.A.'s attempts to comply with the treatment plan was irrelevant.

The trial court terminated D.A.'s parental rights under Minn.Stat. § 260.221(b)(5) and (b)(7). The fifth of seven statutory grounds for termination deals with uncorrected circumstances of neglect:

That following upon a determination of neglect or dependency, reasonable efforts, under the direction of the court, have failed to correct the conditions leading to the determination * * *

Minn.Stat. § 260.221(b)(5) (1984). Subsection (b)(7) permits termination if a child is neglected and in foster care, a concept defined as follows:

"Neglected and in foster care" means a child

(a) Who has been placed in foster care by court order; and

(b) Whose parents' circumstances, condition, or conduct are such that the child cannot be returned to them; and

(c) Whose parents, despite the availability of needed rehabilitative services, have failed to make reasonable efforts to adjust their circumstances, condition or conduct, or have willfully failed to meet reasonable expectations with regard to visiting the child or providing financial support for the child.

Minn.Stat. § 260.015, subd. 18.

The court found that D.A. had made no significant attempts to comply with the treatment plan, that chances were poor for correcting conditions of neglect in the future, and that the child could not be returned to the circumstances of her parent.

At the November hearing, D.A. informed the court that she was three and one-half months pregnant. She testified of her willingness to enter Lincoln House, a program that teaches parenting skills. She expressed her willingness to undergo outpatient therapy. She said she had refused to enter Willmar as an inpatient because Willmar would not improve her parenting skills. She testified that she had stopped using chemicals and was involved in a treatment program. She also testified that she was not using biofeedback rather than prescription drugs to control migraine headache pain. At the conclusion of the November trial, the court announced its decision for termination, but said that D.A. would have a further chance before the order issued to present any clearly persuasive plans that might change the court's mind. The court issued its order in December, but stayed it until February 1, 1985, so that D.A. would have adequate time to present a plea for other action.

On January 31, 1985, D.A. filed an affidavit with the court stating that she was enrolled in an outpatient chemical dependency treatment program and had completed five weeks of the program. She stated that, as part of the program, she was attending A.A. once a week and would participate in a twelve week aftercare program. She was also seeing a clinical psychologist once a week and was planning to begin participation in the Lincoln House program, which teaches parenting skills. She was also attempting to obtain a job so she would no longer be dependent upon general assistance.

On February 4, 1985, the trial court issued an order terminating D.A.'s parental rights. In an accompanying memorandum, the court said that D.A. had not demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the parental relationship should continue. The court further stated:

As noted in the court's Memorandum attached to the Findings of November 1, 1984, the court's stay would provide the mother with time to attempt to amend the Findings, but the court further cautioned the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • In re James G.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 29, 2008
    ... ... case for the court to make a determination as to whether the plan should be changed in this matter." ...         Appellant testified in his own behalf. He stated that he has no high school ... (d) has its genesis in federal law, with the enactment of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ("AACWA"), Pub.L. No. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-29i & §§ 670-79b ... ...
  • Dunlap v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re Termination of Parental Rights to BAD)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 7, 2019
    ... 2019 WY 83 IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: BAD, CMS, and ACS, minor children. CATHY ANN DUNLAP, ... liberty of familial association and the compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of children, application of statutes for termination of parental rights is a matter for strict ... ...
  • RN v. State (In re JN)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 23, 2023
    ... ... The juvenile court held a shelter care hearing and found it ... was contrary to JN's welfare to remain with Mother and ... ordered legal custody to DFS. A petition alleging neglect was ... court that DFS made these efforts are not mere formalities ... See Matter of BAD, 2019 WY 83, ¶ 29, 446 P.3d ... 222, 229 (Wyo. 2019) (Fox, J., specially concurring) ... ...
  • JR v. State (In re MA)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 28, 2022
    ...to "improve the circumstances of the parent and the relationship of the parent with the child" (quoting 14 Matter of Welfare of J.A., 377 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985))). We could find no such evidence in the record before us. [¶48] Last, but certainly not least, the Department presente......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT