In re the Welfare of the Children of M.A.H.
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 102
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- County sought termination of parental rights as to all four children; district court terminated rights as to P.P.H. only, on egregious-harm and palpable-unfitness grounds, and did not terminate rights as to A.J.H., T.S.H., or N.M.H.
- P.P.H. suffered severe malnutrition and life-threatening health issues; doctors found emaciation, brain atrophy, and risk of refeeding syndrome.
- M.A.H. and R.J.H. delayed or declined medical/psychological care and followed a rigid, control-based parenting approach; they opposed dairy-based treatment and limited professional intervention.
- After removal, P.P.H. showed weight/height catch-up in foster care, while siblings were in foster care with their own psychological findings.
- CHIPS proceedings were opened; the district court found the siblings did not suffer egregious harm or palpable unfitness warranting termination, though they faced protection and services.
- The appellate court affirmed termination as to P.P.H. based on egregious-harm, and affirmed limits on terminating the other children's rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether egregious harm supports termination as to P.P.H. | County: egregious-harm proven by severe malnutrition. | Parents: harm not caused by intentional acts; not egregious. | Yes; egregious-harm proven; grounds exist. |
| Whether termination as to P.P.H. requires termination of rights to siblings; and whether grounds exist for siblings. | County: egregious-harm may extend to siblings. | No mandatory extension; siblings not shown egregious harm. | Not required; no grounds shown to terminate siblings. |
| Best interests analysis supports termination for P.P.H.; not for siblings. | Termination in P.P.H.’s best interests given needs and safety. | Home environment and sibling bonds weigh against termination of siblings. | Termination in P.P.H.’s best interests; not for siblings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of A.L.F., 579 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. App. 1998) (egregious-harm breadth applies to neglect cases)
- In re Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 1980) (clear error standard and grounds for termination)
- In re Welfare of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. App. 2011) (two-step analysis for grounds and best interests)
- In re A.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 43 (Minn. App. 2000) (legal question of application of egregious-harm)
- In re Welfare of H.G.B., 306 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1981) (preservation of CHIPS proceedings and fitness considerations)