In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. A. P., Parent.
A16-1430
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- Mother C.A.P. previously had parental rights to two children (A.H. and K.H.) terminated after K.H. was killed by the mother's partner and A.H. showed signs of abuse; prior termination affirmed on appeal.
- County provided services in the earlier CHIPS case (domestic-violence programming, parenting assessment, OFP), but C.A.P. resumed contact and cohabitated with the abusive partner despite an OFP.
- C.A.P. gave birth to a third child, T.P., in 2016; county filed a petition to involuntarily terminate her rights to T.P. alleging palpable unfitness and failure to comply with parental duties.
- At the 2016 TPR trial, county introduced the prior CHIPS order and prior TPR; C.A.P. introduced evidence of housing, therapy, parenting education, and supports since pregnancy.
- The district court found C.A.P. not credible on claims of change, credited county and GAL witnesses about ongoing risk (dishonesty, poor judgment, unsafe relationships), found clear-and-convincing proof of palpable unfitness, and concluded termination was in T.P.’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother rebutted statutory presumption of palpable unfitness arising from prior TPR | C.A.P.: her testimony and evidence of services, housing, therapy, and parenting education rebut the presumption | County: prior involuntary TPR creates a rebuttable presumption of unfitness; mother’s evidence insufficient | Court: did not need to decide rebuttal; independently found by clear-and-convincing evidence that mother is palpably unfit |
| Whether county met burden to prove palpable unfitness by clear and convincing evidence | C.A.P.: county relied improperly on prior conduct and presumption | County: presented testimony and records showing ongoing dishonesty, unsafe relationships, lack of insight | Court: credited county/GAL testimony and found county met its burden; affirmed palpable-unfitness finding |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | C.A.P.: evidence of changes and supports show T.P. would be safe with reunification | County/GAL: child’s safety at risk given mother’s unchanged judgment and dishonesty; competing interest in child safety and permanence | Court: court’s credibility findings supported that mother hadn’t changed; TPR is in T.P.’s best interests |
| Whether district court erred by relying on past conduct rather than current conditions | C.A.P.: decision improperly emphasized past TPR rather than present fitness and change | County: present evidence demonstrates continued risk; past conduct informs current assessment when mother shows no change | Court: reliance on past conduct was appropriate here because court found mother had not truly changed; no legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 2014) (describes statutory presumption from prior involuntary TPR and burdens in TPR proceedings)
- In re Welfare of Child of J.W., 807 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. App. 2011) (explains rebuttable-presumption burden of production and standard for assessing a parent’s proffered evidence)
- In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2008) (best-interests factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- In re Welfare of Children of M.A.H., 839 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. App. 2013) (articulates three-part best-interests balancing factors)
- In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 750 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2008) (standard for clear-error review of juvenile-court findings)