In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: v. R. E., Parent., A16-1170

Background

Mother V.R.E. is the biological parent of infant L.R.B. (b. Apr. 2015) and two older children who were the subjects of prior CHIPS proceedings; mother has a long history of substance abuse, mental-health diagnoses, and repeated involvement with child-protection services.
After L.R.B. sustained significant injuries on December 3, 2015 while left in the care of mother’s boyfriend (whom she had been dating two weeks and who used an alias), the county filed a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition and the child was placed out-of-home.
The district court found multiple statutory grounds for TPR, principally that mother was “palpably unfit” under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), based on a consistent pattern of conduct and inability to care for the child for the reasonably foreseeable future.
The court highlighted mother’s decade-long child-protection history, repeated relapses despite multiple treatment programs and services, poor protective decisions (e.g., leaving a seven-month-old with an inadequately vetted caregiver), failure to seek prompt medical care for the infant’s injuries, and ongoing lease/visitor violations.
The district court also found termination was in L.R.B.’s best interests because the child needed stability, safety, and a caregiver able to meet long-term needs; the court rejected continued CHIPS jurisdiction as unlikely to produce adequate change.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the "palpably unfit" ground (§ 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4))	Mother: she complied with the case plan, made meaningful progress, and the December incident did not negate prior positive reports	County: mother's lengthy pattern of child-protection involvement, relapses, poor judgment, and the December injuries show palpable unfitness	Affirmed — court found clear and convincing evidence of palpable unfitness based on long-term pattern and lack of meaningful, sustained change
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests	Mother: presumption that a child is best with a natural parent; CHIPS continuation preferable to TPR	County: child’s need for stability and safety outweighs mother’s interest given her repeated failures and recent relapse	Affirmed — court concluded termination served child’s best interests and continued CHIPS would delay permanency
Whether district court improperly relied on lack of "meaningful change" or misapplied statutory criteria	Mother: court erred by focusing on perceived lack of meaningful change despite service engagement	County: changes were insufficient and not sustained; court properly assessed conditions at time of trial	Affirmed — court’s focus on present conditions and foreseeable ability to parent was proper; findings supported by record
Admissibility/credibility of testimony and procedural objections (e.g., guardian ad litem, social worker credibility)	Mother: trial court erred admitting expert testimony and erred in factual findings due to social worker inexperience	County: testimony admissible; district court entitled to assess credibility	Affirmed — appellate court deferred to district court’s credibility determinations and found no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

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 Child of T.D., 731 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. App. 2007) (TPR decision must be based on conditions at time of trial)
In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1996) (appellate courts should exercise great caution in termination proceedings)
In re Welfare of D.L.R.D., 656 N.W.2d 247 (Minn. App. 2003) (appellate review: examine statutory criteria and whether findings are clearly erroneous)
In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1996) (deference to district court credibility determinations in TPR cases)
In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2008) (definition of clearly erroneous in juvenile proceedings)
In re Welfare of the Child of D.L.D., 771 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. App. 2009) (best-interests criterion must be addressed in TPR findings)
In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2008) (review standard: close inquiry into sufficiency of clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re Children of T.A.A., 702 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2005) (only one statutory ground needed to support TPR)
In re Welfare of R.T.B., 492 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1992) (competing interests include stability, health, and child's preferences)
In re Welfare of Children of J.R.B., 805 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. App. 2011) (best-interests determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)