A16-1270 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. M. and L. S., Parents., A16-1254

Infant R.R.M. born 2015; hospital and public-health staff observed parental stress, limited parenting skills, and safety concerns at parents’ residence leading to a child-protection report and emergency protective custody.
County placed R.R.M. with foster parent and both parents admitted the child was in need of protection or services; a reunification plan was ordered requiring psychological evaluation, parenting instruction, safe housing, and regular visitation.
Over ~300 days the county provided services: foster placement, case management, supervised visitation with offered parenting instruction, psychological assessments, and mental-health coordination; parents’ engagement and compliance were inconsistent.
Parents missed multiple visits, declined or failed to follow recommended therapeutic services, and staff observed ongoing inability to interact appropriately with the infant and to meet his developmental needs.
County sought termination of parental rights; district court found reasonable efforts were made, statutory grounds for termination existed (Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (5), (8)), and termination was in the child’s best interests; both parents appealed and appeals were consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the county made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunite	County: provided relevant, adequate, timely, culturally appropriate services over 300 days	Parents: argue efforts inadequate or not tailored / attorney conflict hampered access	Court: county made reasonable, genuine efforts; finding not clearly erroneous
Existence of statutory ground under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301(1)(b)(5)	County: reasonable efforts failed to correct conditions that led to out-of-home placement	Parents: challenge sufficiency of proof that conditions uncorrected and presumption applies	Court: presumption under (b)(5) applies (parents failed to maintain contact/comply); statutory ground proven
Whether termination is in child’s best interests	County/guardian: child needs prompt permanency; parents haven’t shown ability to meet safety/developmental needs	Parents: argued interest in parenting and potential for improvement	Court: balancing favors termination for child’s stability and safety; termination in best interests
Ineffective assistance / conflict from single attorney representing both parents (M.M.)	M.M.: joint representation created conflict; counsel failed to protect his stronger compliance and failed to object to evidence	County: no conflict; counsel’s strategy permissible; no Strickland prejudice	Court: no conflict shown; counsel’s performance within reason; Strickland standard not met; claim denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2008) (termination elements: reasonable efforts, statutory ground, best interests)
In re Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2008) (only one statutory ground required for termination)
In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. App. 2011) (standard of review for termination findings and statutory-basis determinations)
In re Welfare of Children of S.W., 727 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. App. 2007) (reasonable efforts must be genuine, not merely formal)
State v. Gassler, 505 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1993) (competent representation standard for attorneys)
Pierson v. State, 637 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. 2002) (presumption that counsel’s performance falls within reasonable professional assistance)
State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2003) (description of prejudice standard under Strickland)