In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.T.P. and L.V.J., Parents., A16-576

Background

Parents adopted three sons (C.K., J.K., G.K.) in 2008 after the children suffered prior abuse; the children have extensive behavioral and mental-health needs (C.K.: RAD, PTSD, anxiety, ADHD).
On Oct. 19, 2015 mother reported that C.K. had sexually abused G.K.; C.K. was removed and placed at a group home; Ramsey County filed a CHIPS petition Oct. 26, 2015 alleging four statutory grounds.
A three-day CHIPS trial occurred (Jan. 25, 27; Mar. 7, 2016); district court adjudicated the children CHIPS under four grounds and found parents unwilling/unable to provide necessary services.
Parents conceded two grounds (G.K. victim of sexual abuse; C.K. dangerous to siblings) but argued the county failed to prove the children would not receive needed services absent county involvement.
Record showed parents proactively arranged therapy for all children, sought placement/treatment for C.K. (Mille Lacs Academy), and engaged psychiatric care themselves; both guardians ad litem recommended dismissal.
Appellate court found several district-court factual findings clearly erroneous (mother did not oppose removal, parents sought psychosexual evaluation/appropriate services, mother was under psychiatric care, therapists supported parents’ engagement) and reversed the CHIPS adjudication.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether county proved a statutory CHIPS ground and present need for services	County: four statutory grounds existed and children would not receive necessary services without county involvement	Parents: two grounds conceded but county failed to prove parents were unwilling/unable to secure services; children were already receiving services	Court: district court erred — county did not prove children presently needed county involvement; CHIPS adjudication reversed
Whether district court’s factual findings about parental noncompliance were supported by clear and convincing evidence	County: mother opposed removal, sought return of C.K. before evaluation, resisted treatment recommendations, and would not follow treatment she disagreed with	Parents: record shows mother reported abuse and did not oppose removal, sought appropriate placements and evaluations, had psychiatric care, and treatment lapses were explained by J.K.’s cancer and provider availability	Court: many factual findings (opposition to removal, refusal of psychiatric care, therapist credibility issues) were clearly erroneous
Whether parents’ contentious behavior justified CHIPS despite evidence of services	County: mother’s aggressive conduct undermines confidence she will cooperate and follow recommendations without county oversight	Parents: hostility does not negate documented proactive efforts to obtain and pay for services	Court: mother’s behavior distracted from parents’ demonstrated willingness/ability; behavior insufficient to show present risk requiring county involvement
Whether past noncompliance with recommendations (2014 neuropsych eval, termination of therapy) justified present CHIPS finding	County: prior failures show unwillingness to follow recommendations	Parents: earlier noncompliance explained by inability to find providers and by J.K.’s subsequent terminal brain-tumor diagnosis that shifted focus to life‑saving care	Court: record supports parents’ explanations; past events did not establish current need for county services

Key Cases Cited

In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile-protection matters)
In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 865 N.W.2d 315 (Minn. App. 2015) (review standards for CHIPS adjudication)
In re Welfare of D.N., 523 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. App. 1994) (consideration of conditions at time of trial and improvement since petition)