In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF A.H., Parent
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 26
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child A.W. removed after injuries; CHIPS petition filed; county later sought termination of parental rights.
- During TPR trial, parents A.H. and Z.W. agreed to permanent transfer of legal and physical custody to relative guardians K.W. and N.W.; agreement allowed 12 hours/month combined supervised visitation with detailed conditions.
- Visitation proved contentious: parents repeatedly challenged the child’s name and the guardians’ role; supervisors’ notes documented ongoing conflict and stress for the child.
- Parents sought expanded visitation; juvenile court denied expansion in 2014 and later (2015) reduced visitation to one three-hour visit per month without an evidentiary hearing, while retaining juvenile-court jurisdiction.
- A.H. appealed, arguing lack of juvenile-court jurisdiction, misapplication of family-law standards (Minn. Stat. § 518.175), denial of evidentiary hearing, and abuse of discretion in reducing visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.H.) | Defendant's Argument (County/Guardians) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jurisdiction to modify visitation post-permanency | Juvenile court lacks authority; parenting-time issues belong in family court | Juvenile court retained exclusive jurisdiction over permanency and visitation under juvenile statutes and rules | Juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction when it specifically retains it |
| 2. Applicable legal standard for modifying visitation | Juvenile court should apply family-law "endangerment"/parenting-time standard (§ 518.175) | Juvenile-protection best-interests standard (§ 260C.511) governs post-permanency visitation | Court must apply juvenile best-interests standard, not § 518.175 endangerment test |
| 3. Right to evidentiary hearing before reducing visitation | Statute requires a hearing to restrict parenting time; A.H. was denied one | Juvenile statutes do not require § 518.175 hearing; parents received parenting report and could respond | No error in deciding without an evidentiary hearing under juvenile-protection framework |
| 4. Abuse of discretion in reducing visitation | Reduction unlawful absent finding of endangerment; harms parental relationship | Record showed ongoing parental hostility, child stress, supervisor notes supporting reduction | Reduction to one three-hour monthly visit was supported by findings and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Schlener, 859 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 2015) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Stern v. Stern, 839 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. App. 2013) (juvenile court retains exclusive jurisdiction over permanency matters)
- Katz v. Katz, 408 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1987) (correct decision will not be reversed for incorrect reasoning)
- In re Welfare of Children of D.F., 752 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. App. 2008) (review standard for best-interests analysis)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental-rights substantive-due-process principles)
- Moore v. Moore, 734 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. App. 2007) (discussion of jurisdictional terminology)
- In re Welfare of the Child of P.T., 657 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. App. 2003) (parental rights relinquished by transfer of custody)