In the Matter of the WELFARE OF J.M., J.M., and M.M.
No. C6-96-2365.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan. 28, 1998.
574 N.W.2d 717
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Andrew J. Mitchell, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, for Respondent.
Michael J. Biglow, Minneapolis, for Guardian ad Litem.
BLATZ, Justice.
OPINION
Almost three years ago, Hennepin County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition to terminate appellant Frances Michaud‘s parental rights to her three youngest children: son J.M., daughter J.M., and son M.M. After several hearings and complex negotiations attempting to reunite the family, the juvenile court ordered from the bench that the children be placed in long-term foster care so that Michaud could continue to have supervised visits even though she was not capable of parenting them effectively. Hennepin County filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the statute governing permanent placement of children clearly prohibited placement of the Michaud children into long-term foster care. In response to the motion, the juvenile court issued a written order ruling that it had erred “by not properly considering the ages of the subject children each of whom was then under the age of seven years” and ordering that Michaud‘s parental rights be terminated. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the juvenile court‘s decision.
On appeal, Michaud argues that her children‘s best interests in long-term foster care placement conflict with the statutory limitation on such placement and that therefore their best interests must prevail. She also contends that because the juvenile court failed to make specific findings on the children‘s adoptability, its factual findings were inadequate. We affirm.
Frances Michaud is the mother of son J.M., born on December 7, 1988; daughter J.M., born on April 2, 1990; and son M.M., born on September 16, 1991.1 All three of the Michaud children have special needs. Hennepin County has been involved with Michaud and the children for more than six years. Son J.M. and daughter J.M. were adjudicated children in need of protection and services (CHIPS) under
In February 1995, Hennepin County filed a petition to terminate Michaud‘s parental rights under the termination statute,
At a hearing after the first 90-day period, all parties agreed that Michaud had substantially complied with her case plan. At another hearing 45 days later, Hennepin County again acknowledged that Michaud remained in compliance with her case plan and asked the juvenile court to continue the matter for the remaining 45 days of the stay. The guardian ad litem, however, asked the juvenile court to revoke the stay and to terminate Michaud‘s parental rights. The guardian ad litem contended that despite Michaud‘s best efforts, she would not be able to parent her children outside Incarnation House, the highly structured transitional housing program in which she was living. The juvenile court continued the matter but asked the parties to submit proposed findings.
On February 14, 1996, Hennepin County reversed its earlier “wait-and-see” position and filed a motion to revoke the stay because Michaud had been terminated from Incarnation House and no longer had stable housing. At a contested hearing on June 4-5, 1996, Michaud testified that she had been terminated from Incarnation House because she and another resident had altered a pop bottle to look like a crack pipe as a practical joke. She admitted that she had made a mistake in judgment, even though she had not used the bottle to smoke crack. Michaud testified that she was currently living with a friend, but if her children were returned to her, she would move with them into a shelter until they could find suitable housing. A staff worker from Incarnation House testified that Michaud was ready to take custody of her two sons but then Michaud sabotaged reunification when she was on the verge of success.
The Michaud children‘s child protection worker, James Lachowsky, testified extensively about Michaud‘s bond with her children and her ability to parent. He testified that although the children identified Michaud as their mother and look to her for approval, Michaud had only marginally improved in her ability to parent. He acknowledged that Michaud continued to comply with her case plan, including the requirement that she abstain from drug and alcohol use and continue with therapy. He also stated, though, that she refused to provide him with the address of where she was living. He concluded that she would not be able to parent her children effectively in the foreseeable future and that termination of her parental rights would thus be in her children‘s best interests. When asked about the Michaud children‘s prospects for adoption, Mr. Lachowsky stated, “there‘s no such thing as an unadoptable child.” He admitted, however, that daughter J.M.‘s special needs might make her difficult to adopt. He speculated that the most likely outcome was that the two boys would be adopted together, while the girl would have to be adopted separately.
The guardian ad litem, Patricia Barnacle, agreed with the child protection worker‘s conclusion that Michaud‘s parenting skills had not improved over time. Ms. Barnacle witnessed approximately 12 visits between Michaud and her children and testified about several incidents in which Michaud did not display appropriate responses or skills. Ms. Barnacle acknowledged that daughter J.M.‘s
At the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court ruled from the bench that the children‘s best interests required placing them in long-term foster care. The juvenile court stated the parties had agreed that Michaud‘s parental rights would not be terminated as long as she complied with her case plan, and that the “joke” with the pop bottle did not affect the children and did not violate the “letter” of her case plan. The juvenile court found that Michaud would not be able to parent her children effectively in the foreseeable future, but determined that she should continue to have supervised visitation rights so long as she complied with her case plan. The juvenile court ordered that the Michaud children be placed into long-term foster care and that the juvenile court receive progress reports every six months. No written order was issued.
On June 12, 1996, Hennepin County filed a motion asking the juvenile court to reconsider its order for long-term foster care. At a hearing on July 25, 1996, Hennepin County argued that the juvenile court had no authority to place the three children in long-term foster care because the permanency statute,
The juvenile court reversed its earlier ruling and terminated Michaud‘s parental rights in a written order dated October 23, 1996. In its order, the juvenile court declared that it had erred in its earlier order by failing to consider the age of the Michaud children, all of whom were under age seven at the time. It concluded that termination was justified because Michaud had failed to comply with the portion of her case plan requiring her to find safe, stable housing; she was palpably unfit to parent because of her chemical dependency and mental illness; and the Michaud children were neglected and in foster care. In support of its conclusions, the juvenile court made detailed factual findings, including that the best interests of each child were best served by termination of Michaud‘s parental rights and that Hennepin County had made “every reasonable effort to assist [Michaud] to rehabilitate herself as a parent and to reunite this family.” Michaud appealed.
In a divided opinion, the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the juvenile court. The court of appeals noted that several of its earlier decisions had recognized a potential conflict between the permanency statute and a determination that long-term foster care serves the best interests of the child. In Michaud‘s case, however, the court of appeals concluded that she had shown no compelling evidence that long-term foster care was in fact in the best interests of the Michaud children, and thus the conflict did not arise. Moreover, the court of appeals held that the juvenile court‘s findings in support of its best interests analysis were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
On appeal, Michaud argues that the best interests of her children require placing them in long-term foster care, and that their best interests trump the permanency statute‘s strict limitations on long-term foster care placement. She also contends that the juvenile court failed to make specific findings as to the children‘s adoptability and that therefore the factual findings were inadequate. Because we conclude that the permanency statute prohibits placement of the Michaud children into long-term foster care and that Michaud‘s parental rights were properly terminated, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
This case first requires us to determine whether the permanency statute,
The permanency statute explicitly establishes that transfer of legal custody to a relative or termination of parental rights and adoption are the preferred permanency options for children who cannot return home.
[T]he court may only order long-term foster care for the child under this section if it finds the following:
(i) the child has reached age 12 and reasonable efforts by the responsible social service agency have failed to locate an adoptive family for the child; or
(ii) the child is a sibling of a child described in clause (i) and the siblings have a significant positive relationship and are ordered into the same long-term foster care home.
Act of May 6, 1994, ch. 598, § 7, 1994 Minn. Laws 1243, 1248 (codified at
The permanency statute also contains the general requirement that “[i]n ordering a permanent placement of a child, the court must be governed by the best interests of the child.”
Michaud‘s argument appears based in part on the mistaken notion that once a parent‘s rights are terminated, the child may no longer have contact with the parent. It is true that when the state has met the heavy burden of showing that termination is in the child‘s best interests, the parent no longer has any legal right to have contact with the child.
Indeed, the legislature has not precluded any contacts that are in the child‘s best interests during the time between termination of parental rights and finalization of adoption. In fact, it recently enacted a statutory provision clarifying that the juvenile court shall retain jurisdiction over a case in which adoption is the desired permanency disposition.
When these statutes are read together, it is clear that the legislature has deliberately crafted laws that are child-centered. The laws as a whole prevent the desires or needs of a parent who has been adjudicated unfit or unable to meet the child‘s needs to dictate the existence or frequency of contact. While we recognize that this creates an emotionally wrenching situation for a parent, the legislature has insisted that the child‘s best interests are paramount. See
Because we conclude that the restrictions on placement of children under 12 in long-term foster care are clear and unambiguous and do not conflict with the statutory best interests standard, we conclude that the juvenile court correctly refused to order the Michaud children into long-term foster care.
II.
We next consider whether the termination statute,
The termination statute contains no provision requiring a juvenile court to assess the likelihood that a child will be adopted as part of its analysis of the child‘s best interests. See
Michaud, however, relies on several recent decisions by the court of appeals asserting that an evaluation of the best interests of the child in a termination proceeding requires an assessment of the child‘s prospects for adoption. See In re Welfare of M.P., 542 N.W.2d 71, 76 (Minn.App.1996); In re Welfare of A.J.C., 556 N.W.2d at 620; In re Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d 170, 177 (Minn. App. 1997). The court of appeals in In re M.P. attempted to distinguish our explicit holding in In re P.J.K.—that imminence of adoption was not a requirement in termination cases—by arguing that In re P.J.K. had been decided before this court announced that the child‘s best interests were the paramount consideration in termination proceedings and before the legislature amended the termination statute to include that language. 542 N.W.2d at 76, n. 4.; see also In re J.J.B., 390 N.W.2d 274, 279 (Minn.1986) (holding that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in terminating parental rights); Act of April 14, 1988, ch. 514, § 8, 1988 Minn. Laws 402, 407.
Canons of statutory construction militate against reading into the statutory text a provision not already there. See Wallace v. Commissioner of Taxation, 289 Minn. 220, 229, 184 N.W.2d 588, 593-94 (1971). Moreover, our determination in In re P.J.K. that the termination statute does not require an imminent adoption remains valid. The court of appeals’ contention in In re M.P., that the elevation of the best-interests standard in both case law and statute makes In re P.J.K. no longer controlling, is unconvincing. Before this court adopted the best interests of the child standard as the paramount consideration in termination cases, the standard previously required balancing the interests of the parent and the child in determining whether to terminate parental rights. In re J.J.B., 390 N.W.2d at 279. After we held in In re J.J.B. that the child‘s best interests are paramount, the legislature enacted legislation stating that in any termination proceeding, the best interests of the child are paramount. 1988 Minn. Laws ch. 514, § 8. Further, the legislature stated explicitly that when the interests of a parent and child conflict, the best interests of the child are paramount. Id. Elevating a child‘s best interests over the interests of a parent does not make proof of adoptability a more compelling consideration.
Weighty policy considerations raised by both parties also support a conclusion that the termination statute does not require findings on adoptability before parental rights can be terminated. Michaud argues that Hennepin County cannot simply assert that “there‘s no such thing as an unadoptable child” and must instead provide statistics on the probability that a child will be adopted. In contrast, Hennepin County correctly points out that Michaud‘s reliance on past statistics about adoption fails to recognize that both the federal and state governments have recently passed legislation designed to remove barriers to adopting children in foster care. See, e.g.,
III.
Finally, we address Michaud‘s contention that the juvenile court‘s findings supporting its termination order were inadequate. This court gives deference to the juvenile court‘s decision to terminate parental rights, but it will closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it was clear and convincing. In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W.2d 886, 893 (Minn.1996).
A thorough review of the record in this case reveals that the juvenile court relied on clear and convincing evidence in terminating Michaud‘s parental rights. As part of the settlement agreement in August 1995 staying the termination order, Michaud made adverse admissions on the record about her past behavior, and she conceded that other people‘s testimony would demonstrate she was an unfit parent. Nevertheless, the juvenile court gave her yet another opportunity to rehabilitate by staying the termination order, even though her children had been in and out of Hennepin County‘s custody since 1991.
During the hearing in June 1996 on Hennepin County‘s motion to revoke the stay, the juvenile court heard extensive testimony about Michaud‘s continued inability to parent her children effectively. In support of its termination order in October 1996, the juvenile court found that Michaud was “secretive” about her living arrangements and unwilling to disclose to her caseworker her exact whereabouts; as of June 1996, she was still unable to assume the responsibilities of parenthood with any of her three children; and Hennepin County had made every reasonable effort to assist Michaud and to reunite the family. The juvenile court ordered termination only after hearing extensive testimony. The Michaud family‘s child protection worker and the guardian ad litem testified in support of termination. Both individuals had observed Michaud‘s interaction with her children and believed that it was in each of the Michaud children‘s best interests to terminate Michaud‘s parental rights. After reviewing the record, we conclude that it clearly supports the juvenile court‘s findings of fact.
In summary, we hold that the permanency statute‘s restrictions on long-term foster care for children under 12 are clear and unambiguous and do not conflict with the statutory requirement that the child‘s best interests are paramount. We further hold that the termination statute does not require assessment of a child‘s adoptability as part of the analysis of the child‘s best interests, and that clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court‘s decision to terminate Michaud‘s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Affirmed.
TOMLJANOVICH, Justice (concurring specially).
I agree with the result reached in this case because I believe that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children. But I do not believe the statute should be read, nor do I believe the Legislature intended to foreclose best interest of the children as the primary consideration in determining their future.
The majority notes that the permanency statute requires “[i]n ordering a permanent placement of a child, the court must be governed by the best interests of the child.”
While predicting adoption with certainty may be impossible, surely it should be a factor a judge may consider when facing the stark choice of long-term foster care or termination of parental rights. How can it be in the best interest of a child to ignore the possibility of a future with no parent—with no family—however flawed we may believe them to be.
In my view the Legislature did not intend that the statute be interpreted to foreclose any option that would be in the best interest of the children.