Welfare of L.J.B., Matter of, CX-83-1560
| Decision Date | 16 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | CX-83-1560,Nos. C1-83-1558,s. C1-83-1558 |
| Citation | 356 N.W.2d 394 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the WELFARE OF L.J.B., minor child, (C1-83-1558). In the Matter of the WELFARE OF M.B., minor child, (). Nos. C1-83-1558, . |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights when that decision was, in part, based upon its own investigation outside the record of the father's behavior after the termination hearing.
Richard C. Mollin, International Falls, for appellant Father.
Craig Somo Hunter, Park Rapids, for minor children.
David C. Johnson, Koochiching County Atty., Michael Jaksa, Shermoen & Shermoen, International Falls, for respondent Mother.
Heard, considered, and decided by PARKER, P.J., and FOLEY and HUSPENI, JJ.
The father appeals termination of his parental rights, alleging the trial court based the termination in part upon its investigation of the father's conduct after conclusion of the termination hearing. We reverse and remand for additional evidentiary proceedings and reconsideration by the trial court.
A.M. and M.B. are the parents of M.B., born May 1980, and L.B., born August 1981. The parents were never married. Their parental rights to three older children were terminated in 1978.
The parents' drinking problems periodically rendered them unable to care for M.B. and L.B. The children were each adjudged neglected and placed in foster homes when they were approximately six months old. In January 1983, Koochiching County petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the parents because of their failure to maintain sobriety, contribute to the support of the children, establish a suitable home, or visit the children regularly. The mother does not challenge the termination of her parental rights.
The court stayed the March 1983 termination hearing several days when the father appeared in court intoxicated. When the hearing resumed, witnesses testified that the father had severe alcohol addiction problems which interfered with his ability to resume a normal parent-child relationship. He had repeatedly received treatment for alcohol addiction. The father acknowledged that he was an alcoholic, but testified that he loved his children, was concerned about their welfare, and was eager to rehabilitate himself so he could provide proper parental care. Father had visited with the children on a limited basis, although he had attempted additional visitation and been refused because of his intoxicated condition.
In September 1983, the trial judge terminated the father's parental rights, expressly relying upon his knowledge of the father's conduct after the termination hearing. None of the father's post-hearing conduct was part of the formal record before the court. The trial court's memorandum attached to its order dated September 12, 1983, contained the following observations:
The court delayed making a decision in this matter in the hopes that [A.M.] would be able to control his alcohol addiction and work with Family Services to correct the parenting and personal problems which contribute to the neglect of this child. Mr. [M.] appeared at the termination hearing in a very intoxicated condition, had defecated in his clothes, was disorderly, rude and certainly couldn't understand the nature of this hearing and was unable to defend himself. The court continued the matter, held Mr. [M.] in contempt, placed him in jail to sober him up and when he was sober, reconvened the hearing and immediately after the hearing sent Mr. [M.] to alcohol treatment in Ontario. The court then postponed making a decision in order to determine if this treatment would have any effect on Mr. [M.'s] alcoholism. Mr. [M.] completed the treatment program, returned to International Falls and during the early weeks of July commenced to drink again. The court still waited to make its decision, hoping that the use of alcohol would be a short-lived experience and that maybe Mr. [M.] would sober up and begin to get his life together. That did not happen. On August 10th Mr. [M.] appeared before this court on a criminal charge in a drunken condition, asked to go to treatment, was sent to treatment and remains in treatment today.
This court concluded that Mr. [M.] is a hopeless alcoholic and decided that even though he is again in treatment it would be a disservice to the child to wait any further because the probability of success is miniscule.
(Emphasis added.)
Did the trial court err in terminating the father's parental rights on the basis of information not contained in the record?
The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted stringent standards for reviewing orders for termination of parental rights. Welfare of J.W.M., 290 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn.1980). The burden of proof is on the petitioner. There is a presumption that a parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child. Termination orders must be supported by clear, specific findings which conform to the statutory requirements. Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1980). A prior neglect order alone does not justify termination of parental rights. The petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child is being neglected at the time of the termination hearing, and that the neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period. Id. at 769.
The trial court terminated the father's parental rights pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re PT
...fairness guarantees a parent facing termination proceedings a right to a meaningful adversarial hearing. See In re Welfare L.J.B., 356 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn.App. 1984). Because appellants were afforded a meaningful adversarial hearing, we conclude that the statutory presumption of palpable ......
-
Welfare of J.W., Matter of
...opportunity to present testimony on his own behalf and to confront and examine witnesses appearing against him. In re Welfare of L.J.B., 356 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The United States Supreme Court has In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, d......
-
In the Matter of Children of A.L., No. A04-2416 (MN 7/19/2005)
...fairness guarantees a parent facing termination proceedings a right to a meaningful adversarial hearing. See In re Welfare L.J.B., 356 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn. App. 1984). Here, the record reflects that the district court conducted a careful review of the evidence offered and exercised discre......
-
In re Southern
...which ensures fundamental fairness, includes "the opportunity to present evidence." D.F., 752 N.W.2d at 97; see In re Welfare of L.J.B., 356 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that "a valid decision to terminate parental rights" must be based on evidence subject to "due process safe......