In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. P., Parent.
A16-1256
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Mother L.M.P. gave birth to E.U.P. in Jan 2016; both tested positive for PCP and hospital placed the child on a 72-hour hold; out-of-home placement began Jan 15, 2016.
- Hennepin County petitioned to terminate L.M.P.’s parental rights on grounds she was palpably unfit; emergency hearing relieved agency of reunification efforts because L.M.P. had prior involuntary terminations for two other children.
- The agency placed E.U.P. with a foster family that also had the child’s minor sibling; foster parents were not blood relatives of E.U.P.
- L.M.P. missed most requested urinalyses, one returned PCP-positive, and she was jailed on a felony charge in April 2016; at trial she said she had requested placement with an adult daughter or sister.
- The social-services worker testified one relative was contacted but the agency did not pursue alternate placement because the child was placed with her sibling and considered a ‘‘relative placement.’'
- The district court found clear-and-convincing evidence of palpable unfitness, found termination was in the child’s best interests, found the agency exercised due diligence in the relative search, and denied a new trial; appellant appealed only the best-interests finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.M.P.) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inadequate relative search requires denial of termination | The agency failed to adequately search for relatives; statute and policy require placing children with capable relatives, so an inadequate search undermines best-interests finding | No statute or caselaw requires a district court to deny termination based on an inadequate relative search; the court made proper best-interests findings | Court affirmed: inadequate relative search is not a statutory basis to deny termination and no authority requires reversal |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Termination improper because agency prioritized nonrelative foster placement over relative placement, undermining child’s best interests | District court balanced factors, gave weight to stability and sibling placement, and concluded termination served child’s best interests | Court affirmed the district court’s best-interests determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 2014) (framework for involuntary termination: statutory ground and best interests)
- In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2008) (standard of review and clearly erroneous test for termination findings)
- In re Children of T.A.A., 702 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2005) (court must find termination is in child’s best interests)
- In re Children of K.S.F., 823 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. App. 2012) (balance preservation of parent-child relationship against competing interests)
- 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)
- In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. App. 2012) (court abuses discretion when it misapplies law; limits on importing doctrines)
- In re Welfare of J.M., 574 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 1998) (district court not required to make adoptability findings when deciding best interests)
- Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. App. 1987) (role of appellate courts in extending law)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (forfeiture of issues not raised below)