In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. L. M. and T. E. H., Parents., A16-1087

Child T.J.L.H., born 2012, removed from parents' care in April 2014 after concerns including domestic violence, father’s prior sexual-abuse allegations, and neglect; child diagnosed with failure to thrive and speech delay.
Parents (M.L.M. — mother; T.E.H. — father) had ongoing supervised and unsupervised visitation but exhibited persistent parenting deficiencies: mother repeatedly fell asleep, had poor supervision/boundaries, and failed to internalize parenting instruction; father displayed hostility toward social workers, history of domestic violence, and refusal to engage in services.
OCCS provided extensive reunification services; reunification efforts ceased for father in mid-2015 and for mother later when court found insufficient progress.
OCCS filed a second TPR petition (TPR 2) alleging palpable unfitness, failure to correct conditions, and neglected-and-in-foster-care; trial included competing parenting-capacity assessments and parents’ expert testimony.
The district court terminated both parents’ rights, relying on multiple statutory grounds and best-interest findings; parents appealed, challenging statutory findings and the denial of county payment for their expert witness fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OCCS)	Parents' Argument	Held
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests	Child needs stable, violence-free, attentive caregivers; parents cannot provide that	Parents love child and made efforts; termination not necessary	Affirmed: record supports best-interest finding favoring termination
Whether palpable-unfitness ground was established	Parents’ history and assessments justify palpable-unfitness finding	District court misapplied presumption (no prior involuntary terminations)	Reversed as to palpable-unfitness: court misapplied presumption of unfitness
Whether other statutory grounds support termination (neglected in foster care; failure to correct conditions)	Multiple statutory grounds shown by delay in reunification, lack of corrective progress, and father’s willful noncooperation	Parents challenge sufficiency, argue they made efforts and services helped	Affirmed in part: father’s termination upheld on neglected-in-foster-care; mother’s termination upheld on failure-to-correct after reasonable efforts
Whether county must pay parents’ expert witness fees (Stelzner)	County argued parents could pay; district court denied county payment	Parents argued statute makes fees a county charge for witnesses in TPR cases	Reversed: district court erred by denying county payment based solely on parents’ ability to pay; remanded for county to pay expert fees

In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. App. 2012) (presumption that natural parents are fit; standards for palpable unfitness)
In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2008) (elements required for termination: best interests, reasonable efforts, statutory grounds)
In re Welfare of C.K., 426 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. 1988) (burden to prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. App. 2011) (best-interest analysis and appellate review standards)
In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1992) (factors balancing parent/child interests and competing interests)
Tanghe v. In re Welfare of Child, 672 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. App. 2003) (credibility determinations in best-interest findings are fact-intensive)
In re Welfare of D.F.B., 412 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. App. 1987) (statutory requirement that conditions exist at time of trial and likely continue)
In re Children of T.A.A., 702 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2005) (only one statutory ground need be proven to terminate)
In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 2014) (importance of permanency and stability in TPR cases)
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust, 775 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. App. 2009) (deference to district court determinations where record supports implicit findings)