*1 wording justifies tain which this conviction, interpreta- any nor shall child be tion, supports but common sense it. When adju- criminal reason this deemed a prior juvenile adjudication adjudication is used for dication, nor shall impeachment purposes juvenile court, dispo- crime. The in deemed a conviction of given adjudication any confidentiality, the child or evidence still retains its sition of juvenile juvenile court shall not proceedings the child since are closed to the against as evidence him public. be admissible court, any proceeding any case or other Affirmed.
except adjudication may that an later be sentence, nor
used to determine a disposition disquali- or evidence
shall
fy any him in future civil service exami-
nation, appointment, application. Nothing contained in this
Subd. construed to relate to
section shall be court, subsequent proceedings juvenile In the Matter of the HGB, WELFARE OF court, preclude juvenile un- nor shall MAB, and DJB. specif- der circumstances other than those 1, from ically prohibited in subdivision No. 50440.
disclosing qualified per- information Supreme Court of Minnesota. sons if the court considers such disclosure be in interests of the child or the best justice. of the administration of the rule is the belief that Underlying proceedings paternalistic are
juvenile therefore be unfair
the notion that it would permit juvenile records to be used as records,
though being were criminal
public following information and and har- throughout his
assing juvenile life. objections to
Other more technical the later adjudications, stemming from
use of such procedural safeguards insuring lack of adjudications, have
reliability largely years removed in recent as a result of Gault,
the effect of In re
juve-
nile
This rule conflict with the it
confrontation if barred cross-examination pro- prosecution witness in a criminal Schilling, see 270 N.W.2d
ceeding, State (Minn.1978), generally the rule
plies proceedings. in adult criminal situation is different because
Our pro proceeding is not an adult criminal
ceeding proceeding in adjudicatory but an juvenile interpret court. We the stat adjudica barring prior
ute as not use of a purposes juvenile in a impeachment
tion
proceeding. only Not does statute *2 Alexis, Paul, Cheney,
John P. Arthur St. for fathers. Gen., Paul, Atty.
Warren Spannaus, St. Foley, County Atty., Thomas and C. Steven DeCoster, County Paul, Atty., Asst. for St. Dept. County Welfare Paul, Seaberg, Arthur guardian St. ad litem and the children.
TODD, Justice.
The minor children involved herein were adjudicated dependent and neglected chil- dren on November 1977. In August 1978, petition for termination of Joyce, was filed. the mother of the children, minor was served while incarcerat- ed prison Mississippi. Counsel was appointed for her. After several continu- ances, termination held was Joyce being present, without although she represented by counsel. Termination ordered, Joyce challenges and the suffi- ciency of and proc- the evidence raises due ess issues. We affirm.
On July
County
the Ramsey
Department
Welfare
petition
filed a
HG,
temporary legal custody, alleging that
24, 1972, MA,
bom
born
DJ,
October
were
born
dependent
neglected.
petition
al-
leged
mother,
that
Joyce, had emo-
disabilities,
tional or
hys-
mental
had been
terical
in her
angry
with a
contacts
worker,
social
suffered
had
nervous break-
downs, and
lived with
pimp
a known
who had been convicted of
assault
theft;
alleged
fathers
chil-
dren did
provide
not
them
with care
support;
that their mother moved frequent-
home;
ly
permanent
and at times had no
provide
fol- ment
in all recommendations until
failed to
medical
that she had
HG and immunizations for
low-up care for
May
time. On
a similar order was en-
children;
the children were left
tered,
and the matter was continued to
23, 1977, at
supervision on June
without
August
appellant’s
10. On
picked up by
were
which time
withdraw,
permitted
counsel was
shelter;
emergency
placed
in an
police
matter was then continued to October
made no contact with the
that the mother
*3
department about the children until
welfare
24, 1978,
August
depart-
On
the welfare
1977;
30,
she
failed to
and that
pa-
petitioned
ment
for termination
cooperate
department
with the welfare
rights
appellant
alleged
and of the
rental
help
attempts
planning
its
to
her in
for her
fathers of the children for their failure to
hearing
petition,
At the
on this
children.
(failure
give
necessary parental
them
care
placed
temporary legal
the children were
visit,
support financially,
to
to
and to cor-
custody, and the matter was continued until
rect the
which had led to the
conditions
22,1977.
September
It was thereafter con-
neglect and dependency).
determination of
22,
tinued until November
1977.
represented
It
that the mother had aban-
date, appellant
represented
was
On that
doned the children and that her where-
attorney
an
from LARC and the children
2,
abouts was unknown since March
1978.
court-appointed guardian
ad litem.
hearing
The court ordered that notice of the
one of
The admitted father of
the children
by publication pursuant
be served
to Minn.
agreed
permit
department
to
the welfare
to
Septem-
On
Stat. §
custody,
appellant opposed
remain in
it.
1, 1978,
5, 1978,
ber
and on October
adjudicated
hearing,
After the
it was
that
court ordered the matter continued until
dependent
neglected.
the children were
1, 1978,
procure
upon
to
service
November
legal custody
The court ordered that the
appellant.
finding
continued after
the children
proper parental
were without
care because
26, 1978,
September
appellant tele-
On
appellant;
of the faults and habits of
she
Burkinshaw,
phoned Mrs. Elizabeth
a social
lived with a man who had a record of
department,
worker for
welfare
from
assault;
convictions, including
several
asking
chil-
jail Mississippi,
her about the
necessary
children were without
subsistence
saying
(appellant)
dren and
that she
their health
required
or other care
for
hearing
going
prison shortly. At the
to
their mother moved fre-
morals because
1, appellant’s at-
for November
scheduled
with
quently,
provide
did not
them
until De-
torney requested a continuance
and dental
and left
immunizations
appellant’s
which time
attor-
cember
at
food;
them alone and without
the mother
ney
appellant
the court that
informed
prostitution
convicted of
in Au-
had been
of her
petition
tested the
for termination
gust 1977 and arrested for it in October
be returned
requested
that she
1977;
the children since
she had not visited
Prior to that
to Minnesota for the trial.
care
placement
foster
on
date, the court also had received a letter
1977;
cooperate
to
with
and she had failed
stating that she “would like
appellant,
from
attempts
department
the welfare
in its
to
put
my
have this matter with
children be
help
planning
her in
for them. The court
come back and defend
off until I’m able to
be disturbed in social-
also found HG to
At
myself
prison.”
after I’m released from
adjustment and in need of a sta-
emotional
27, the matter
on December
Legal custody
home environment.
ble
again, supposedly until Feb-
was continued
in the welfare de-
the children remained
ruary
partment
February
place on
hearing,
At the
which took
next
the matter was
February
On
moved
appellant’s attorney
again
day
continued until
on that
informing the court
again,
for continuance
May
and the mother was or-
parole in the
appellant
eligible
“is
cooperate
depart-
dered to
with the welfare
part
May.” Alternatively,
latter
January
he
On
appellant called the
workhouse,
social worker from
asked to be allowed to withdraw because
asking
he
the children and saying that she
put
could not
on an effective defense. The
would
days,
be out in 30
longer
would no
opposed
motion for continuance was
by the
man,
associate with the
and would work on
county attorney who said that
parole
goals
Holt,
set for her. Edwin
a Hen-
hearing apparently was one to determine
nepin County
Department
Welfare
social
eligible
whether she
pa-
would become
working
worker also
appellant,
with
went
role;
going Mississippi
that her
see
her at the workhouse to offer her
she had committed the crimes was entirely
transportation
assistance with
if needed
doing;
her
if
she could not be
and with references to mental agencies.
hearing,
it was due to “her
him,
told Holt that she would call
own free
down in Mississippi.”
actions
but never did. Holt made a visit to her
county attorney urged
ages
that the
apartment
February
22 and found that
period
children and
had been in she
again living
with the
Appel-
man.
*4
foster care made it crucial that
hearing
lant listened to Holt review
goals
and
proceed rather than be continued because of
optimistic
seemed
attaining
about
them.
the possibility of a parole. The court
appointment
She broke an
for February
agreed, denying
motion,
the alternative
and
at which time future visitations were to be
proceeded.
the trial
scheduled, and she was to be taken to see
the children at
their foster homes. On
The testimony of social workers estab-
2, appellant
visited the children with
following placement
lished that
of the chil-
a social worker and on March 6 and March
dren in foster care on
by
20 went
herself to see them. At the last
appellant
them,
made no visits to
no
made
meeting, she
bring
offered to
a dress and
inquire
them,
calls to
about
and sent no
some Easter baskets to HG and DJ a few
presents
prior
or cards to them
to the hear-
later,
days
but did not
appoint-
come. An
ing
Following
November
“sign
ment to
a contract
goal
areas”
dependency
neglect
and
determination on
up
was set
appellant
but
did
date, appellant
appointment
missed an
keep
not
it. Her whereabouts thereafter
up
set with her attorney by her social work- was not
September 26,
known until
er to
goals
discuss
for return of the children certified letters sent her by the social work-
custody.
to her
came to
She
another
ers were being returned during
period.
pointment,
goals
were discussed:
September
stated,
On
as
appellant tele-
children;
the need for regularly visiting the
phoned Mrs. Burkinshaw.
finding
suitable housing; for establish-
A
psychiatrist diagnosed
child
MA hy-
as
ing financial stability; and for participating
perkinetic,
thought multiple placements
parent-effectiveness
in a
training program.
were more harmful to such children than to
Appellant
urged
keep
regular con- others, and
permanence
said
need
tact with the social worker. One visit was
stability in their emotional and affectional
arranged in December at the welfare office
life. A child psychologist said that HG had
because of earlier
by appellant
threats
very
anxious when
Sep-
first seen in
remove the children from the state and
tember
that her intelligence had been
hysterical
because of her
behavior in talk-
on the
range
borderline
but that she had
ing with the social worker. At that meet-
improved
steadily in foster
and that
ing, a
lived,
man with whom appellant
al- her
growth
intellectual
had been steady.
legedly a pimp convicted of assault and The
psychologist
child
said that anxiety in a
theft, came with her to the visit. This
child often results from uncertainty and
proved upsetting to HG who told the social
lack of security
early
years, that HB still
worker that she had been
beaten
greater
suffers
anxiety
child,
than a normal
A
man.
second visit
arranged
for De-
and that
she
followup
need
because
appellant
come,
cember
did not
call- of personality difficulties.
psychologist
say
that she
overslept.
had
adoption.
recommended
facts,
mother,
evidence,
the court ordered that
as well as the al
On this
rights be terminated on
appellant’s parental
leged
adjudi
fathers of HG and DJ and the
MA,
ground
substantially
that she had
substantially
cated father of
give
refused to
the children
continuously
continuously
give
refused to
the children
care and
necessary
necessary parental
protection.
care and
the di-
that reasonable efforts under
find
not reversed such
past,
In the
we have
the court had failed to correct the
rection of
juvenile
appeal
court on
ings by the
leading to the determination of
conditions
here,
supported,
as
substantial evidence
neglect
entered
dependency and
clearly
and where not
erroneous.
In re
November
court on
J.M.S.,
(Minn.
Welfare of
trial. from the order appeals had the mother been at the denying this motion. explained away she could have 5 months absence, silence, disregard and total presented The issues are: previous addition to her lack interest and parental rights 1. In a termination establishing plan refusal cooperate parent proceeding, is a denied due for the return the children to her custo- physically present or she is not because he Nevertheless, dy. appellant contends that hearing? procedures these denied her due considerations in 2. What are the law. light of proceeding a termination statuto- *5 ry changes? It is settled that the nature of due process flexibility. proc is The amount of sustain an order of 3. Does the evidence ess due varies with the circumstances of the termination? by case. As stated the United States Su pivot point 1. from which we preme Court in Cafeteria & Restaurant and fundamen start is that the substantial Union, McElroy, Workers Local 473 v. 367 rights parents custody to the tal of 1743, 1748, 81 U.S. S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d companionship of their children should not (1961): 1230 except grave be taken from them negates The very process nature of due weighty Copperud, reasons. McDonald v. any concept procedures of inflexible uni- 440, 444, Minn. 206 N.W.2d 553 295 versally applicable every imaginable (1973). however, property, are not Children * * * due procedures situation. [W]hat persons small unique but and vulnerable any given set process may require under par to the care and of entrusted begin with a of circumstances must deter- recognized, law ents. As we have “[t]he precise nature of the mination of the parental right only long their so as secures government function involved as well as promptly recognize discharge shall that has been af- private interest corresponding obligations.” Anderson by governmental action. fected Gibson, 192, 200, Minn. 50 N.W.2d 235 principle by has been reiterated This (1951). 284 decisions, including Court in a number of 5, 1979, county counsel for the On March 645, 650-51, Illinois, Stanley v. 92 guardian litem for the children ad 1208, 1212-13, (1972) 551 31 L.Ed.2d denied, opposed, and the court a motion for Thus, (quoting McElroy). the determina- found, on a further continuance. The court is due involves a bal- tion of what record, substantial evidence in the that rea- spe- in the ancing of the interests involved sonable efforts under the direction of the cific case under consideration. following court the 1971 determination of now, never, not even dependency neglect had failed to cor- has de leading suggested what she offer in her rect the conditions to that determi- Instead, found, inability on her specific also from fense. she stands nation. The court 826 Linehan, In In re Petition because she was in an 280
to attend
jail.
reject
this contention.
(Minn.1979),
rejected
We
out-of-state
N.W.2d 29
this court
by
represented
counsel.
Appellant was
the use of the best
interest of the child
could
interrogations
have
Depositions or
parental
rights
standard in termination of
recently
This method was
been submitted.
also In re
proceedings. See
Welfare of J.
Supreme
Dakota
approved by the North
M.,
W.
(Minn.1980).
290 N.W.2d
772
In
H.,
In the Interest of
F.
in the case of
Court
1978, however,
legislature
passed
(N.D.1979),
202
and the abso-
283 N.W.2d
custody
amendments
to the child
act
rights
advocated
appel-
lute due
significant
impact
have a
on the termina
rejected.
lant in this case were
The North
See Act
parental
rights procedures.
tion of
Dakota court stated:
of Mar.
ch.
1978 Minn. Laws
convict does not have a constitutional
[A]
259.29,
(amending
Minn.Stat.
260.-
§§
right
personally appear
in a civil suit
015, .111, .131, .155, .181, .191, .221, .235, .291
permitted
appear
he
has been
(1978),
(1976)).
repealing Minn.Stat.
257.07
§
through
if
by deposition,
counsel and
yet
This
has not
addressed these stat
court
appear
propriate. Any
personal-
In re
See
Welfare of Solo
utory changes.
upon
ly
convincing
would have to rest
mon,
(Minn.1980).
367 n.4
N.W.2d
ultimately
reasons and would
be left
10 of the 1978
Section
amendments add-
trial
the sound discretion
court.
ground
ed a new
for the termination
Id. at
The court then listed the factors
parental
rights
to Minn.Stat.
260.221.
§
to be considered
the trial court
in mak-
Act of Mar.
ch.
§
ing
determination:
its
(b)(7)
Minn. Laws at 370-71. Subdivision
may
trial court
take into account
[T]he
ground
states as a
for termination that “the
transport-
the costs and inconvenience of
neglected
child is
foster
care.”
prisoner
place
from his
of incarcera-
260.221(b)(7)
This,
Minn.Stat. §
courtroom, any potential
tion to the
dan-
itself,
particular significance,
is without
ger
security
presence
risk which the
when Minn.Stat.
is
§
particular
pose
inmate would
to the
examined,
incorporates
it
into the termina-
court,
substantiality
of the matter at
proceedings
pro-
tion
*6
issue,
early
need for an
the
determination
See
(1978).
visions of
260.155
Minn.Stat.
§
matter,
possibility
delaying
of the
the
of
260.231,
(1978).
Minn.Stat.
Minn.
§
released,
prisoner
trial until
the
is
the
260.155,
(1978),
7
contains
Stat.
subd.
the
§
merits,
probability of success on the
the
determining
factors for
whether a child “is
integrity
system,
of the correctional
neglected and in foster care” and was also
presenting
the interests of the inmate in
1978. See Act of Mar.
28,1978,
added
ch.
testimony
person
his
rather
than
6,
827
trial,
visited the
available for
re-
(3)
parent
the
has
was anxious to
Whether
preceding
tain her children.
child within
nine months
petition,
it was
filing of the
unless
The
is well
law
settled that failure
impossible for
financially
or
physically
grant parent
opportunity
an
to be heard is
visit
in the best
parent
or not
proc-
equal
a denial of
and due
by the
of the child
be visited
interests
Illinois,
Stanley v.
ess.
405 U.S.
657-
parent;
1208, 1215-16,
92
Minn.Stat. subd. (dissenting). § Chief Justice added.) phasis join in the Justice Otis. I dissent of Mr. intent must be ascribed to these Some legislative alterations. We conclude that YETKA, (dissenting). Justice incorporate a legislature intended to I concur with the dissent of Mr. Justice process into termination of balancing Otis. rights proceedings. As demon- factors by the listed Minn.Stat. strated subd.
§ parents the interests of the
siders both interests of child.
the best The termination order in this amply supported by substantial evi
case is clearly Minn.R. and is not erroneous. dence DEVINE, al., Appellants, et Dale 52.01. Civ.P. *7 Affirmed. McLAIN, Respondent, Darlene AMDAHL, J., part took in the consid- no Guckenberg, Al’s Howard d. b. a. of this case.
eration or decision Bar, Respondent. OTIS, (dissenting). Justice No. 50715. which in subscribe to a rule I cannot Supreme Minnesota. justifies a denial of due Court of effect had this finding that mother permanently which eliminat- 5, 1981. Rehearing Aug. Denied rights, likelihood of her ed her prevailing would have been minimal. were
Here the mother’s whereabouts
known, she was soon to be released