In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. S. C. and D. E. D., Parents. ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-0052
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. S. C. and D. E. D., Parents.
Filed June 8, 2015
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge
Blue Earth County District Court
File No. 07-JV-14-2773
Thomas K. Hagen, Jason C. Kohlmeyer, Rosengren Kohlmeyer Law Office Chtd.,
Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant D.E.D.)
Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Susan B. DeVos, Assistant County
Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent Blue Earth County Human Services)
Michael Mountain, Mountain Law Office, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent T.S.C.)
Susan Kohls, St. Peter, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Willis,
Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the termination of his parental rights to his infant
daughter, arguing that the district court erred by determining that he failed to rebut the
*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
statutory presumption that he is palpably unfit to parent. Because a statutory ground for
termination exists and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.
FACTS
Mother T.S.C. and father D.E.D. are the biological parents of I.R.D., born June 19,
2014. A medical screening of I.R.D. following her birth revealed the presence of
methamphetamine. I.R.D. was placed in foster care after her birth and has continued to
reside in foster care. D.E.D.’s parental rights to a son were involuntarily terminated in
March 2013. He was incarcerated in April 2014 for first-degree burglary and second-
degree assault.
In August 2014, the Blue Earth County Human Services Department (the county)
filed a petition to terminate T.S.C.’s and D.E.D.’s parental rights to I.R.D. on the grounds
that T.S.C. and D.E.D. are palpably unfit to parent I.R.D. and that I.R.D. is neglected and
in foster care. T.S.C. consented to the termination of her parental rights, and a trial as to
D.E.D.’s parental rights was held in November 2014. The district court subsequently
issued an order terminating D.E.D.’s parental rights to I.R.D. The district court
determined that D.E.D. did not rebut the statutory presumption, applicable due to his
prior involuntary termination of parental rights, that he is palpably unfit to parent I.R.D.
The district court further determined that termination of D.E.D.’s parental rights is in
I.R.D.’s best interests and that the county proved by clear and convincing evidence that a
statutory ground for termination exists. This appeal followed.
2
DECISION
Whether to terminate parental rights is discretionary with the district court. In re
Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127, 136-37 (Minn. 2014). While a reviewing
court conducts a close inquiry into the evidence, the reviewing court also gives
“considerable deference” to the district court’s termination decision. In re Welfare of
Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). The reviewing court will affirm
the termination of parental rights if “at least one statutory ground for termination is
supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the child’s best
interests.” In re Welfare of Children of R.W., 678 N.W.2d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004). A
decision that termination is in the child’s best interests is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895, 905 (Minn. App. 2011),
review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012).
A Statutory Ground for Termination
A district court may involuntarily terminate parental rights if one or more of nine
conditions exist. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b) (2014). One such condition is that
the
parent is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and child
relationship because of a consistent pattern of specific
conduct before the child or of specific conditions directly
relating to the parent and child relationship either of which
are determined by the court to be of a duration or nature that
renders the parent unable, for the reasonably foreseeable
future, to care appropriately for the ongoing physical, mental,
or emotional needs of the child.
3
Id., subd. 1(b)(4). It is typically presumed “that a natural parent is a fit and suitable
person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.” In re Welfare of A.D., 535
N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 1995).
But “[i]t is presumed that a parent is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent and
child relationship upon a showing that the parent’s parental rights to one or more other
children were involuntarily terminated . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4). The
parent then has the burden to rebut this presumption by introducing evidence that would
justify a finding of fact that he is not palpably unfit. In re Welfare of Child of J.W., 807
N.W.2d 441, 445-46 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that whether this burden has been
satisfied is determined on a case-by-case basis), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 2012). The
parent “must affirmatively and actively demonstrate her or his ability to successfully
parent a child” and is “required to marshal any available community resources to develop
a plan and accomplish results that demonstrate the parent’s fitness.” Id. at 446
(quotations omitted); see also R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d at 137 (stating that the parent must
produce enough evidence to support a finding that he is suitable to be entrusted with the
care of the child). The parent “must do more than engage in services and must
demonstrate that his or her parenting abilities have improved.” J.W., 807 N.W.2d at 446
(quotations omitted).
At trial, D.E.D. called Lieutenant Lori Wacha, who served as D.E.D.’s case
manager during part of his incarceration. Lieutenant Wacha testified that D.E.D. was
participating in or had completed various programs while in prison, including chemical-
dependency treatment, completion of his GED, 12-step meetings, and classes dealing
4
with anger management, domestic violence, conflict resolution, socialization, criminal
thinking, family, parenting, relationships, and financial management. Lieutenant Wacha
also testified that D.E.D. had been selected for and was participating in a program where
inmates train dogs to be used as service animals. She stated that she was not aware of
any programming available to D.E.D. that he did not take advantage of during his
incarceration. Lieutenant Wacha admitted that she has never seen D.E.D. interact with a
child.
D.E.D. testified that he completed inpatient chemical-dependency treatment in
2013 following a release from jail, moved to a halfway house, and then began using
chemicals again and failed to complete his aftercare program, which led to a revocation
of probation and his incarceration. He was incarcerated before I.R.D.’s birth and stated
that he had never seen her in person. But he testified that he believes he will be able to
properly parent I.R.D. and remain chemical free upon release from prison. He also stated
that he will look for employment and will be reliant upon his family for support and
I.R.D.’s care.
D.E.D. argues on appeal that his participation in programming while incarcerated
justifies a finding of fact that he is not palpably unfit to parent I.R.D. We disagree that
D.E.D.’s involvement in programming within the structured prison environment is
sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that he is palpably unfit to parent. The trial
testimony indicated that D.E.D. took classes on broad topics such as family, parenting,
and relationships, but the testimony did not elaborate on any skills that D.E.D. learned to
enable him to provide daily care for I.R.D. D.E.D. provides no support for his claim that
5
his role training dogs to be used as service animals “consists of the same principals to
parenting a child.” D.E.D. testified at trial that he would rely on his family to help him
care for I.R.D., but he did not call any family members to testify as to their willingness to
provide care for I.R.D. And while D.E.D. met the requirements of chemical-dependency
treatment while incarcerated, he also previously completed inpatient chemical-
dependency treatment and then went back to using chemicals.
D.E.D. compares his situation to that in J.W., where this court reversed a district
court’s determination that appellant-mother failed to rebut the presumption of palpable
unfitness. 807 N.W.2d at 446-47. J.W. had introduced her own testimony and the
testimony of 14 other witnesses to demonstrate that she had made significant and material
changes since her previous termination proceedings. Id. at 446. The trial testimony
indicated that J.W. had successfully participated in supervised visitation with her
children, parenting classes, and behavioral therapy and that she had a stable living
environment and support network. Id. Since D.E.D.’s previous termination proceedings,
he completed inpatient chemical-dependency treatment, began using chemicals again,
failed to complete his aftercare program, had his probation revoked, and was
incarcerated. D.E.D.’s situation is readily distinguishable from that of J.W.
We note that the fact that a parent is in prison does not itself render him palpably
unfit to parent. See In re Welfare of B.C., 356 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Minn. App. 1984). But
D.E.D. failed to present evidence at trial that he has the skills or a plan to successfully
parent I.R.D. On this record, the district court did not err by determining that D.E.D.
failed to rebut the presumption that he is palpably unfit to parent I.R.D.
6
The Best Interests of the Child
The child’s best interests are the paramount consideration in a termination
proceeding. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.001, subd. 2(a), .301, subd. 7 (2014). A child’s best
interests may preclude a termination of parental rights even when a statutory basis for
termination exists. In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 771 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Minn. App.
2009). Best-interests analysis requires consideration of the child and parent’s interests in
preserving the parent-child relationship and of any competing interests of the child.
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 39.05, subd. 3(b)(3); see also J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d at 905
(“Competing interests [of the child] include such things as a stable environment, health
considerations[,] and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted)).
I.R.D. is about one year old and has resided in foster care since her birth. D.E.D.
has no relationship with I.R.D. given that he was incarcerated before her birth and has
never seen her in person. D.E.D. has a history of substance abuse and of committing
violent criminal acts. Termination will allow I.R.D. to be adopted into a family that can
meet her needs and provide her a safe and stable home. The district court did not abuse
its discretion by determining that termination of D.E.D.’s parental rights is in I.R.D.’s
best interests. Because a statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and
convincing evidence and termination is in I.R.D.’s best interests, we affirm the
termination of D.E.D.’s parental rights to I.R.D.
Affirmed.
7