In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. K. W. and G. B. W., Parents.
A16-526
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Mother (C.K.W.) had parental rights involuntarily terminated in 2009 by Dakota County for substance abuse, unstable housing, unemployment, mental-health issues, and neglect.
- In 2014 mother gave birth to A.W.; Rice County filed to terminate her rights based on the statutory presumption of palpable unfitness arising from the 2009 termination and removed the child to foster care.
- Trial (two days, Feb. 2016) featured testimony from the social worker, guardian ad litem, and mother; evidence addressed current chemical use, housing, mental health, employment, and parenting.
- Mother tested positive for marijuana several times, refused some UA tests, did not complete recommended substance-abuse treatment, and provided only self‑testimony of current sobriety.
- Mother faced housing instability (evicted during trial), intermittent therapy begun about a month before trial but refused releases, and unemployment tied to an untreated heart condition; minimal parenting-course participation and visitation concerns (odor, overfeeding).
- District court found mother failed to rebut the statutory presumption of palpable unfitness and that termination was in A.W.’s best interests; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (County/Foster interests) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother rebutted the statutory presumption of palpable unfitness (based on prior involuntary termination) | Mother argued she produced evidence of changed circumstances: sobriety, stable housing, mental‑health treatment, steps toward employment, and improved parenting | County argued mother’s evidence was insufficient: continued positive UAs/refusals, no completed treatment, eviction, minimal corroborating evidence of mental‑health or substance‑abuse stabilization, and ongoing parenting deficits | Held: Mother failed to rebut the presumption; her testimony alone was insufficient to show she was suitable to be entrusted with the child’s care. |
| Whether termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interests | Mother argued she had no safety concerns and sought reunification; court should preserve the parent‑child relationship | County/guardian argued the child had bonded with foster family, needs were met in foster care, and mother’s instability (substance use, housing, employment, parenting) made reunification unsafe | Held: District court did not abuse its discretion; substantial evidence supported that termination was in A.W.’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of P.T., 657 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. App. 2003) (parental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons)
- In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2008) (termination requires statutory ground and best interests; appellate deference to district court)
- In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 2014) (presumption rebuttal standard and assessment of parental suitability)
- In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1996) (deference to district court credibility findings)
- In re Welfare of Child of J.W., 807 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. App. 2011) (county’s burden to prove palpable unfitness; parent’s burden to produce rebuttal evidence)
- In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2008) (substance use alone does not automatically render a parent palpably unfit)
- In re Welfare of Child of W.L.P., 678 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. App. 2004) (sobriety alone may be insufficient to rebut presumption without evidence of sustained change)
- In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1996) (mental illness alone is not a sufficient basis for termination)
- In the Matter of the Welfare of D.L.R.D., 656 N.W.2d 247 (Minn. 2003) (limited parenting-class attendance insufficient to show meaningful improvement)
- In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1992) (best‑interests balancing factors include stability and child’s preferences)
- In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. App. 2011) (appellate review of best‑interests determination is for abuse of discretion)
- Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 2007) (discusses when witness credibility may matter in rebutting statutory presumptions)