In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.T.P. and L.V.J., Parents., A16-532

Background

Seven minor children were removed after evidence of long‑standing maternal alcohol abuse and physical assaults; Crow Wing County filed CHIPS and later TPR petitions.
Parents had inconsistent residence history; father had intermittent involvement (incarceration/parole) and an ICPC home study flagged concerns about housing, transportation, and case‑plan cooperation.
The county provided extensive services (assessments, therapy, random testing, supervised visits, ICPC, transportation, case management) but social workers found both parents largely noncompliant.
Mother has documented borderline intellectual functioning (IQ ~71); during trial she discharged counsel and proceeded pro se after the court questioned her understanding.
Father completed an initial psychological evaluation but failed to follow recommendations, ignored repeated county contacts, delayed producing a plan for the children, and was found to have been largely absent and to have failed to protect the children.
The district court terminated both parents’ rights, finding statutory grounds met, reasonable efforts by the county, and that termination served the children’s best interests; the court’s order was appealed by both parents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother’s waiver of counsel was voluntary and intelligent	Mother: court should have applied heightened/Criminal waiver procedures given her low IQ and should have found the waiver invalid	County/court: G.L.H. controls; criminal‑waiver procedures not required; mother knowingly waived after questioning	Court: Waiver was voluntary and intelligent; G.L.H. allows lesser procedures than criminal cases; finding not clearly erroneous
Whether father failed to comply with parental duties (statutory ground for TPR)	Father: record insufficient to show clear‑and‑convincing evidence of failure to comply	County/court: father was absent, failed most case‑plan tasks, refused cooperation, failed to protect children	Court: Clear‑and‑convincing evidence supports termination for failure to comply with duties
Whether the county made reasonable efforts to reunify	Father: county’s efforts were inadequate (generally asserted)	County/court: numerous services were offered and father was unresponsive to repeated contacts	Court: District court reasonably found efforts were sufficient; father’s noncooperation made detailed analysis unnecessary
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Father: some witnesses supported continued contact/extension; termination not necessary	County/court: children need stability, have special needs, improved in foster care; delay would harm them	Court: Balancing child’s interests, parents’ interests, and competing needs favors termination; decision not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. 1997) (criminal‑procedure standards for waiver of counsel discussed)
In re Welfare of G.L.H., 614 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 2000) (waiver of counsel in TPR proceedings need not follow criminal waiver procedures)
In re Welfare of A.D., 535 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1995) (presumption that natural parent is fit)
In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1990) (parental rights terminated only for grave and weighty reasons)
In re Welfare of C.K., 426 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. 1988) (county bears burden to prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1996) (statutory requirements for termination and standards for appellate review)
In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. App.) (reasonableness of county reunification efforts and effect of parental nonresponse)
In re Child of Simon, 662 N.W.2d 155 (Minn. App. 2003) (failure to complete case plan supports termination)