SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 9
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
This opinion will be unpublished and
                          may not be cited except as provided by
                          Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).

                                STATE OF MINNESOTA
                                IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                      A12-0536
                                      A12-0645

     In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. L. M. and B. D. M., Parents.

                                  Filed August 27, 2012
                                        Affirmed
                                     Schellhas, Judge

                               Mower County District Court
                                File No. 50-JV-11-3019

Daniel T. Donnelly, Donnelly Law Office, Austin, Minnesota (for appellant C.L.M.)

M. Thomas Lenway, Lenway Law Office, Austin, Minnesota (for appellant B.D.M.)

Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Christa Marie Daily, Aaron Michael Jones,
Assistant Mower County Attorneys, Austin, Minnesota (for respondent)

Thomas J. Nolan, Jr., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem)

       Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and

Schellhas, Judge.

                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge

       In this case to which the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, appellant-parents

challenge the district court’s termination of their parental rights to their two sons, arguing

that the district court erroneously concluded that respondent-county engaged in active

efforts to reunify them with their children. We affirm.
FACTS

       In late April 2011, the Mower County Department of Human Services (the county)

petitioned to terminate the parental rights of appellants B.D.M. and C.L.M. over their

children, T.F., born February 28, 2003, and E.M., born August 22, 2005. C.L.M. is a

registered member of the Cherokee Nation, which is a federally recognized tribal

organization under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). T.F. is a registered member of

the Cherokee Nation, and E.M. is eligible for membership as a biological child of the

Cherokee Nation. C.L.M. is the biological mother of both children. B.D.M. is the

biological father of E.M. The biological father of T.F. is unknown.

       In April 2011, the county received a report that appellants were chaining the boys

to a crib and depriving them of food. E.M. informed one of the county’s child-protection

workers that “Mommy or Daddy will put the chain on his leg, that the chain has a key,

and . . . that it goes on the fence around his bed, and that he has to have a chain because

he’s naughty and he gets up at night and steals food.” Upon entering E.M.’s bedroom, an

investigator with the county sheriff’s office smelled the “absolutely overpowering” smell

of urine; discovered an 18-inch chain that, when attached to E.M. and his crib was too

short for E.M. to even “sit at the edge of the bed”; and discovered that E.M. slept on a

urine-soaked “board.” T.F. informed the investigator that T.F. finds E.M. already chained

to his bed when T.F. comes home from school. T.F. informed a child-protection worker

that E.M. “has to wear the chain because he hasn’t learned to stay in bed and not steal

food” and that T.F. “was very proud . . . that he had learned not to get up and steal food

so [he] didn’t have to wear the chain anymore.” T.F. also informed the investigator that


                                            2
T.F. is hungry “every day”; that E.M. cries when he is hungry and cries every day; and

that T.F. stole food at school because he was hungry. The investigator noted that T.F. was

“[v]ery small . . . both in height and weight for a child his age.” When the child-

protection worker took T.F. and E.M. out to eat, the boys ate their meals, ate the child-

protection worker’s meal, and “proceeded to take all of the jellies and creamers and stuff

them into their pockets.” T.F. stated, “We might need them later.”

       In May 2011, in connection with their abuse of the children, appellants each

pleaded guilty to false imprisonment—unreasonable restraint of a child, a gross

misdemeanor; and malicious punishment of a child, a gross misdemeanor. The district

court dismissed other criminal charges, based on the parties’ plea agreement. On June 14,

2011, appellants and Darcee Brooks, the county social worker assigned to their case,

signed out-of-home placement plans that listed tasks for completion by appellants to

ensure that they adequately parent T.F. and E.M. and provide them with a safe home

environment.

       On July 21, 2011, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

an order, adjudicating the children as children in need of protection or services but

denying the county’s petition to terminate parental rights because the county failed to

prove that it engaged in active efforts to reunify appellants with the children. In its order,

the court found that the county proved the following: (1) C.L.M. and B.D.M. have

substantially, continuously, and repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties

imposed upon them by their parent-child relationship with T.F. and E.M.; (2) C.L.M. and

B.D.M are palpably unfit to be parties to a parent-child relationship with T.F. and E.M.;


                                              3
(3) T.F. and E.M. have experienced egregious harm while in the care of C.L.M. and

B.D.M.; and (4) returning T.F. and E.M. to the care of C.L.M. and B.D.M. would result

in serious physical and emotional harm to both children.

       On July 22, 2011, appellants began to serve their sentences of incarceration for

their convictions of false imprisonment and malicious punishment of their children.

While incarcerated, appellants met with Brooks, the social worker, five times; Brooks

responded to numerous letters from B.D.M. regarding how he could satisfy the placement

plan while incarcerated; Brooks assisted the parents’ completion of several goals in their

placement plans; and Brooks engaged in weekly communications with the guardian ad

litem (GAL) regarding this case. On November 28, 2011, the county filed another

petition to terminate appellants’ parental rights. On January 22, 2012, C.L.M. and B.D.M.

were released from prison.

       After trial on the county’s second petition to terminate parental rights, the district

court took judicial notice of its June 2011 findings and issued findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and an order on March 15, 2012, terminating appellants’ parental

rights to T.F. and E.M. Among other things, the court found that the county proved

beyond a reasonable doubt that it had engaged in active efforts to reunify the parents with

their children.

       These appeals by C.L.M. and B.D.M. consolidated by this court follow.

                                     DECISION

       Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that the district court’s termination of their

parental rights was erroneous because the county failed to engage in active efforts to


                                             4
reunify them with T.F. and E.M. Appellate courts “give considerable deference to the

district court’s decision to terminate parental rights.” In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P.,

744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). But appellate courts reviewing termination-of-

parental-rights cases “closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence” and must

determine “whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria.” Id. The

party petitioning to terminate parental rights to an Indian child bears the burden of

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that termination of parental rights is warranted. See

Minn. R. Juv. P. 39.04, subd. 2(b) (“[I]n a termination of parental rights matter involving

an Indian child, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Matter of Welfare

of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980) (“The burden of proof is upon the

petitioner [for terminating parental rights] and is subject to the presumption that a natural

parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child.”).

       Under ICWA, a “party seeking to effect . . . termination of parental rights to[] an

Indian child under State law” must exert “active efforts . . . to provide remedial services

and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that

these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (2006); see also In re

Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 165 (Minn. App. 2005) (“In Minnesota

courts, proceedings to terminate parental rights to an Indian child must comply with the

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).”). The active-efforts standard is “a standard higher

than the reasonable efforts required to reunify a family under Minn. Stat. § 260.012(c)”

and requires the county to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it engaged in “a rigorous

and concerted level of case work that uses the prevailing social and cultural values,


                                               5
conditions and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe to preserve the child’s family and to

prevent placement of an Indian child.” In re Welfare of Child of E.A.C., 812 N.W.2d 165,

174 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 2012).

       Appellants argue that the county’s efforts to reunify them with T.F. and E.M. were

not active. We disagree, based on (1) the county’s reunification efforts; (2) testimony

supporting the sufficiency of those efforts; and (3) our “considerable deference” to a

district court’s decision to terminate parental rights. S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 385 (regarding

this court’s “considerable deference”).

       The district court took judicial notice of the following findings from the June 2011

termination-of-parental-rights proceeding. Brooks began serving as the county’s case

manager for appellants’ case in April 2011. In May 2011, Brooks met with appellants “to

discuss services [appellants] would need so they could be reunited with T.F. and E.M.,”

and the three of them “developed a draft of an Out-of-Home Placement Plan.”

Approximately three days later, Brooks discussed the proposed placement plan with a

Cherokee Nation Indian expert. Less than two weeks later, in June 2011, Brooks

contacted appellants regarding the placement plan, “[t]he Plan was amended,” and

Brooks met with appellants three days after that “to review a draft of the Plan,” of which

Brooks gave individual copies to appellants and faxed a copy to each of their attorneys.

The placement plan recommended, among other things, that appellants (1) “prepare a

safety plan and present it to [the county],” (2) “complete a parenting assessment,”

(3) “complete a specific psychological evaluation,” and (4) “follow recommendations of

the children’s therapist.”


                                             6
The district court’s following findings are substantially supported by the record,

and the record demonstrates that the county actively attempted to reunify appellants with

T.F. and E.M., as particularly evidenced by the county’s regular contact with appellants.

See Matter of Welfare of T.J.J., 366 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding

that the record supported district court’s conclusion that county engaged in active efforts

to reunify Indian family where county’s social worker was in contact with appellant-

parent “on a monthly basis . . . with the goal of reuniting her with the children”). The

court found that Brooks twice assisted appellants to complete their child-safety plans,

once when they first met in May or June 2011 to draft the placement plan, and once on or

around January 13, 2012, concerning necessary improvements to their safety plans. The

court further found that during appellants’ six-month incarceration, Brooks visited them

five times, arranged to have a therapist conduct their parenting assessments and

psychological evaluations, and provided appellants with a list of county-approved

therapists in November 2011 to assist them in obtaining individual therapy. Moreover,

B.D.M. testified that Brooks responded to numerous letters from him regarding “what

[he] could do while [he] was incarcerated to still stay within the case plan and to follow

what [he] needed to do [to] work through the case plan.” And T.F.’s and E.M.’s GAL

testified that he discussed this case with Brooks “at least weekly . . . maybe in person or

on the phone or via e-mail.”

       Testimony regarding the county’s reunification efforts supports the district court’s

conclusion that the county’s efforts were active. In compliance with ICWA, a tribal

expert witness testified regarding the county’s petition to terminate parental rights and the


                                             7
children’s welfare. Based on the tribal expert’s 22 years of experience as a tribal child

welfare worker, substantial knowledge in tribal customs relating to the social and cultural

standards and childrearing practices of the Cherokee Nation, and a review of the case file,

the tribal expert opined that “active efforts were achieved,” noting that there are no other

services available to assist appellants, T.F., and E.M. The GAL testified that “there are

[not] attempts at reunification that are possible at this time that are not being made,”

explaining that he had not “referred [T.F. and E.M.] for any services” because “[t]he

services I would have recommended for the children have all taken place.” And T.F.’s

and E.M.’s psychiatrist testified that “there is [not] anything that can be done,

programming, services with the boys at this time, that could . . . reunify these children

with their parents.”

       Moreover, the district court found and the record substantially supports that

appellants’ therapist testified that B.D.M. is “incapable” of developing necessary

parenting skills because “he does not take responsibility for his actions” and “the children

will suffer even more harm if they are returned to his care.” The court also found and the

record substantially supports that the intensive therapy necessary to reunify appellants

with their children would take a minimum of nine months to one year and could be

indefinite, with appellants’ relationship with T.F. and E.M. never improving because the

children have no bond or attachment with appellants. Nothing in the record supports a

finding that additional active efforts would lead to reunification between appellants and

T.F. and E.M.




                                             8
Appellants argue that various facts in the record indicate that the county’s efforts

to reunify them with T.F. and E.M. were not active, stressing that Brooks did not meet

with them regarding the development of their child-safety plans between May or

June 2011 and January 2012 and that the county provided them insufficient assistance to

begin individual therapy. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive in consideration of the

evidence demonstrating the county’s active reunification efforts, testimony corroborating

that the county engaged in active reunification efforts, and this court’s “considerable

deference” to a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights. Id.

       Affirmed.




                                               9

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in Oregon
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in OregonLetter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in Oregon
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in OregonLewis Castro
 
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...Roxanne Grinage
 
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...Putnam Reporter
 
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015 EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015 amjolaw
 
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Release
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 ReleaseEOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Release
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Releaseamjolaw
 
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release amjolaw
 
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media Rhony Laigo
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media  Rhony LaigoAtty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media  Rhony Laigo
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media Rhony LaigoPinoyInsider
 
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David Casuco
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David CasucoAtty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David Casuco
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David CasucoPinoyInsider
 
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. KritsonisCourt Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
 
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger oriel
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger orielPinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger oriel
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger orielPinoyInsider
 
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal Brief
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal BriefRooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal Brief
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal BriefCaitlin Rooney
 

Was ist angesagt? (14)

Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in Oregon
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in OregonLetter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in Oregon
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in Oregon
 
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
 
Jessica Roberts, "Genetic Conversion"
Jessica Roberts, "Genetic Conversion"Jessica Roberts, "Genetic Conversion"
Jessica Roberts, "Genetic Conversion"
 
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision No. 18-0230 (Putna...
 
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015 EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015
EOIR complaints, unredacted, April 2015
 
04121601shd
04121601shd04121601shd
04121601shd
 
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Release
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 ReleaseEOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Release
EOIR complaints, Unredacted March 2015 Release
 
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release
EOIR complaints UNredacted, December 2014 Release
 
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media Rhony Laigo
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media  Rhony LaigoAtty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media  Rhony Laigo
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media Rhony Laigo
 
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David Casuco
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David CasucoAtty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David Casuco
Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media David Casuco
 
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. KritsonisCourt Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Court Case Personnel Issues - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
 
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger oriel
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger orielPinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger oriel
Pinoy watchdog.com | asian journal roger oriel
 
Court Case Personnel Issues
Court Case Personnel IssuesCourt Case Personnel Issues
Court Case Personnel Issues
 
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal Brief
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal BriefRooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal Brief
Rooney Excerpt from Appellant Legal Brief
 

Andere mochten auch

Aden Hussen Hassan complaint
Aden Hussen Hassan complaintAden Hussen Hassan complaint
Aden Hussen Hassan complaintPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Med City Marathon Results 2012
Med City Marathon Results 2012Med City Marathon Results 2012
Med City Marathon Results 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for July 21, 2012
Public notices for July 21, 2012Public notices for July 21, 2012
Public notices for July 21, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for May 17, 2012
Public notices for May 17, 2012Public notices for May 17, 2012
Public notices for May 17, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Center City Rochester report
Center City Rochester reportCenter City Rochester report
Center City Rochester reportPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 

Andere mochten auch (7)

Attempted murder
Attempted murderAttempted murder
Attempted murder
 
Aden Hussen Hassan complaint
Aden Hussen Hassan complaintAden Hussen Hassan complaint
Aden Hussen Hassan complaint
 
Med City Marathon Results 2012
Med City Marathon Results 2012Med City Marathon Results 2012
Med City Marathon Results 2012
 
Public notices for July 21, 2012
Public notices for July 21, 2012Public notices for July 21, 2012
Public notices for July 21, 2012
 
Public notices for May 17, 2012
Public notices for May 17, 2012Public notices for May 17, 2012
Public notices for May 17, 2012
 
Center City Rochester report
Center City Rochester reportCenter City Rochester report
Center City Rochester report
 
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012
Public notices for Sept. 8, 2012
 

Ähnlich wie Court of Appeals decision

Moskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionMoskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionChildabuseMaine
 
Moskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionMoskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionDocumentsforMila
 
Ij wilson improper conduct
Ij wilson improper conduct Ij wilson improper conduct
Ij wilson improper conduct Bryan Johnson
 
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution Essay
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution EssayU.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution Essay
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution EssayAndrea Olin
 
Forest Grove School District
Forest Grove School DistrictForest Grove School District
Forest Grove School DistrictMarket JD, Inc.
 
Missouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Missouri Bankers Employment Law ConferenceMissouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Missouri Bankers Employment Law ConferenceDavid Kight
 
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebook
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebookCourt ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebook
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebookWaqas Amir
 
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody Cases
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody CasesAvoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody Cases
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody CasesBrian Vertz
 
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!"
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!" DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!"
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!" amjolaw
 
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case Study
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case StudyGreene Vs Cv-799 Case Study
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case StudyAngela Weber
 
Expedite Due Process Hearing
Expedite Due Process HearingExpedite Due Process Hearing
Expedite Due Process HearingStacey Wilson
 
In Re Balas & Morales Case Analysis
In Re Balas & Morales Case AnalysisIn Re Balas & Morales Case Analysis
In Re Balas & Morales Case Analysishph5sr
 
Juvenile Case Law Update
Juvenile Case Law UpdateJuvenile Case Law Update
Juvenile Case Law Updateguesta13f3a
 
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...Roxanne Grinage
 
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriageing
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingJudge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriageing
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Uniform Child Custody Purification Case
Uniform Child Custody Purification CaseUniform Child Custody Purification Case
Uniform Child Custody Purification CaseAshley Jones
 

Ähnlich wie Court of Appeals decision (20)

In re AJR
In re AJRIn re AJR
In re AJR
 
Moskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionMoskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decision
 
Moskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decisionMoskowitz february 2011 decision
Moskowitz february 2011 decision
 
Revised custody & support
Revised custody & supportRevised custody & support
Revised custody & support
 
Ij wilson improper conduct
Ij wilson improper conduct Ij wilson improper conduct
Ij wilson improper conduct
 
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution Essay
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution EssayU.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution Essay
U.S. Constitution And Texas Constitution Essay
 
Forest Grove School District
Forest Grove School DistrictForest Grove School District
Forest Grove School District
 
Lgb complaint.federal[1]
Lgb complaint.federal[1]Lgb complaint.federal[1]
Lgb complaint.federal[1]
 
Missouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Missouri Bankers Employment Law ConferenceMissouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Missouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
 
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebook
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebookCourt ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebook
Court ruling : Parents may be responsible for what their kinds post on facebook
 
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody Cases
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody CasesAvoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody Cases
Avoiding The Landmines And Pitfalls Of Custody Cases
 
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!"
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!" DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!"
DHS: "Torture of children is acceptable because...safety reasons!"
 
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case Study
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case StudyGreene Vs Cv-799 Case Study
Greene Vs Cv-799 Case Study
 
Expedite Due Process Hearing
Expedite Due Process HearingExpedite Due Process Hearing
Expedite Due Process Hearing
 
In Re Balas & Morales Case Analysis
In Re Balas & Morales Case AnalysisIn Re Balas & Morales Case Analysis
In Re Balas & Morales Case Analysis
 
Juvenile Case Law Update
Juvenile Case Law UpdateJuvenile Case Law Update
Juvenile Case Law Update
 
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
120309PhiladelphiaDHSVictimYoungDetwilerChildrenvAliceBeckDubowCarlinSaafirId...
 
Sample writing 2014
Sample writing 2014Sample writing 2014
Sample writing 2014
 
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriageing
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingJudge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriageing
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriageing
 
Uniform Child Custody Purification Case
Uniform Child Custody Purification CaseUniform Child Custody Purification Case
Uniform Child Custody Purification Case
 

Mehr von Post-Bulletin Co.

Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Matthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releaseMatthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releasePost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportWabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Post-Bulletin Co.
 
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignThrondson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignPost-Bulletin Co.
 

Mehr von Post-Bulletin Co. (20)

Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 11, 2012
 
Matthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of releaseMatthew Judy notification of release
Matthew Judy notification of release
 
Celebrations
CelebrationsCelebrations
Celebrations
 
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 9, 2012
 
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final reportWabasha County Government Study Commission final report
Wabasha County Government Study Commission final report
 
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 4, 2012
 
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
Public notices for Jan. 3, 2012
 
Friends of Wabasha appeal
Friends of Wabasha appealFriends of Wabasha appeal
Friends of Wabasha appeal
 
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 31, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 29, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 27, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 26, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 24, 2012
 
leghed
leghedleghed
leghed
 
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 22, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 21, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 20, 2012
 
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
Public notices for Dec. 19, 2012
 
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
Mankato independent, Jan. 2, 1863
 
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaignThrondson complaint against Hanson campaign
Throndson complaint against Hanson campaign
 

Court of Appeals decision

  • 1. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-0536 A12-0645 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. L. M. and B. D. M., Parents. Filed August 27, 2012 Affirmed Schellhas, Judge Mower County District Court File No. 50-JV-11-3019 Daniel T. Donnelly, Donnelly Law Office, Austin, Minnesota (for appellant C.L.M.) M. Thomas Lenway, Lenway Law Office, Austin, Minnesota (for appellant B.D.M.) Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Christa Marie Daily, Aaron Michael Jones, Assistant Mower County Attorneys, Austin, Minnesota (for respondent) Thomas J. Nolan, Jr., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for guardian ad litem) Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge In this case to which the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, appellant-parents challenge the district court’s termination of their parental rights to their two sons, arguing that the district court erroneously concluded that respondent-county engaged in active efforts to reunify them with their children. We affirm.
  • 2. FACTS In late April 2011, the Mower County Department of Human Services (the county) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of appellants B.D.M. and C.L.M. over their children, T.F., born February 28, 2003, and E.M., born August 22, 2005. C.L.M. is a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, which is a federally recognized tribal organization under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). T.F. is a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, and E.M. is eligible for membership as a biological child of the Cherokee Nation. C.L.M. is the biological mother of both children. B.D.M. is the biological father of E.M. The biological father of T.F. is unknown. In April 2011, the county received a report that appellants were chaining the boys to a crib and depriving them of food. E.M. informed one of the county’s child-protection workers that “Mommy or Daddy will put the chain on his leg, that the chain has a key, and . . . that it goes on the fence around his bed, and that he has to have a chain because he’s naughty and he gets up at night and steals food.” Upon entering E.M.’s bedroom, an investigator with the county sheriff’s office smelled the “absolutely overpowering” smell of urine; discovered an 18-inch chain that, when attached to E.M. and his crib was too short for E.M. to even “sit at the edge of the bed”; and discovered that E.M. slept on a urine-soaked “board.” T.F. informed the investigator that T.F. finds E.M. already chained to his bed when T.F. comes home from school. T.F. informed a child-protection worker that E.M. “has to wear the chain because he hasn’t learned to stay in bed and not steal food” and that T.F. “was very proud . . . that he had learned not to get up and steal food so [he] didn’t have to wear the chain anymore.” T.F. also informed the investigator that 2
  • 3. T.F. is hungry “every day”; that E.M. cries when he is hungry and cries every day; and that T.F. stole food at school because he was hungry. The investigator noted that T.F. was “[v]ery small . . . both in height and weight for a child his age.” When the child- protection worker took T.F. and E.M. out to eat, the boys ate their meals, ate the child- protection worker’s meal, and “proceeded to take all of the jellies and creamers and stuff them into their pockets.” T.F. stated, “We might need them later.” In May 2011, in connection with their abuse of the children, appellants each pleaded guilty to false imprisonment—unreasonable restraint of a child, a gross misdemeanor; and malicious punishment of a child, a gross misdemeanor. The district court dismissed other criminal charges, based on the parties’ plea agreement. On June 14, 2011, appellants and Darcee Brooks, the county social worker assigned to their case, signed out-of-home placement plans that listed tasks for completion by appellants to ensure that they adequately parent T.F. and E.M. and provide them with a safe home environment. On July 21, 2011, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, adjudicating the children as children in need of protection or services but denying the county’s petition to terminate parental rights because the county failed to prove that it engaged in active efforts to reunify appellants with the children. In its order, the court found that the county proved the following: (1) C.L.M. and B.D.M. have substantially, continuously, and repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed upon them by their parent-child relationship with T.F. and E.M.; (2) C.L.M. and B.D.M are palpably unfit to be parties to a parent-child relationship with T.F. and E.M.; 3
  • 4. (3) T.F. and E.M. have experienced egregious harm while in the care of C.L.M. and B.D.M.; and (4) returning T.F. and E.M. to the care of C.L.M. and B.D.M. would result in serious physical and emotional harm to both children. On July 22, 2011, appellants began to serve their sentences of incarceration for their convictions of false imprisonment and malicious punishment of their children. While incarcerated, appellants met with Brooks, the social worker, five times; Brooks responded to numerous letters from B.D.M. regarding how he could satisfy the placement plan while incarcerated; Brooks assisted the parents’ completion of several goals in their placement plans; and Brooks engaged in weekly communications with the guardian ad litem (GAL) regarding this case. On November 28, 2011, the county filed another petition to terminate appellants’ parental rights. On January 22, 2012, C.L.M. and B.D.M. were released from prison. After trial on the county’s second petition to terminate parental rights, the district court took judicial notice of its June 2011 findings and issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order on March 15, 2012, terminating appellants’ parental rights to T.F. and E.M. Among other things, the court found that the county proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it had engaged in active efforts to reunify the parents with their children. These appeals by C.L.M. and B.D.M. consolidated by this court follow. DECISION Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that the district court’s termination of their parental rights was erroneous because the county failed to engage in active efforts to 4
  • 5. reunify them with T.F. and E.M. Appellate courts “give considerable deference to the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights.” In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). But appellate courts reviewing termination-of- parental-rights cases “closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence” and must determine “whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria.” Id. The party petitioning to terminate parental rights to an Indian child bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that termination of parental rights is warranted. See Minn. R. Juv. P. 39.04, subd. 2(b) (“[I]n a termination of parental rights matter involving an Indian child, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Matter of Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn. 1980) (“The burden of proof is upon the petitioner [for terminating parental rights] and is subject to the presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child.”). Under ICWA, a “party seeking to effect . . . termination of parental rights to[] an Indian child under State law” must exert “active efforts . . . to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (2006); see also In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 165 (Minn. App. 2005) (“In Minnesota courts, proceedings to terminate parental rights to an Indian child must comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).”). The active-efforts standard is “a standard higher than the reasonable efforts required to reunify a family under Minn. Stat. § 260.012(c)” and requires the county to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it engaged in “a rigorous and concerted level of case work that uses the prevailing social and cultural values, 5
  • 6. conditions and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe to preserve the child’s family and to prevent placement of an Indian child.” In re Welfare of Child of E.A.C., 812 N.W.2d 165, 174 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 2012). Appellants argue that the county’s efforts to reunify them with T.F. and E.M. were not active. We disagree, based on (1) the county’s reunification efforts; (2) testimony supporting the sufficiency of those efforts; and (3) our “considerable deference” to a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights. S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d at 385 (regarding this court’s “considerable deference”). The district court took judicial notice of the following findings from the June 2011 termination-of-parental-rights proceeding. Brooks began serving as the county’s case manager for appellants’ case in April 2011. In May 2011, Brooks met with appellants “to discuss services [appellants] would need so they could be reunited with T.F. and E.M.,” and the three of them “developed a draft of an Out-of-Home Placement Plan.” Approximately three days later, Brooks discussed the proposed placement plan with a Cherokee Nation Indian expert. Less than two weeks later, in June 2011, Brooks contacted appellants regarding the placement plan, “[t]he Plan was amended,” and Brooks met with appellants three days after that “to review a draft of the Plan,” of which Brooks gave individual copies to appellants and faxed a copy to each of their attorneys. The placement plan recommended, among other things, that appellants (1) “prepare a safety plan and present it to [the county],” (2) “complete a parenting assessment,” (3) “complete a specific psychological evaluation,” and (4) “follow recommendations of the children’s therapist.” 6
  • 7. The district court’s following findings are substantially supported by the record, and the record demonstrates that the county actively attempted to reunify appellants with T.F. and E.M., as particularly evidenced by the county’s regular contact with appellants. See Matter of Welfare of T.J.J., 366 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that the record supported district court’s conclusion that county engaged in active efforts to reunify Indian family where county’s social worker was in contact with appellant- parent “on a monthly basis . . . with the goal of reuniting her with the children”). The court found that Brooks twice assisted appellants to complete their child-safety plans, once when they first met in May or June 2011 to draft the placement plan, and once on or around January 13, 2012, concerning necessary improvements to their safety plans. The court further found that during appellants’ six-month incarceration, Brooks visited them five times, arranged to have a therapist conduct their parenting assessments and psychological evaluations, and provided appellants with a list of county-approved therapists in November 2011 to assist them in obtaining individual therapy. Moreover, B.D.M. testified that Brooks responded to numerous letters from him regarding “what [he] could do while [he] was incarcerated to still stay within the case plan and to follow what [he] needed to do [to] work through the case plan.” And T.F.’s and E.M.’s GAL testified that he discussed this case with Brooks “at least weekly . . . maybe in person or on the phone or via e-mail.” Testimony regarding the county’s reunification efforts supports the district court’s conclusion that the county’s efforts were active. In compliance with ICWA, a tribal expert witness testified regarding the county’s petition to terminate parental rights and the 7
  • 8. children’s welfare. Based on the tribal expert’s 22 years of experience as a tribal child welfare worker, substantial knowledge in tribal customs relating to the social and cultural standards and childrearing practices of the Cherokee Nation, and a review of the case file, the tribal expert opined that “active efforts were achieved,” noting that there are no other services available to assist appellants, T.F., and E.M. The GAL testified that “there are [not] attempts at reunification that are possible at this time that are not being made,” explaining that he had not “referred [T.F. and E.M.] for any services” because “[t]he services I would have recommended for the children have all taken place.” And T.F.’s and E.M.’s psychiatrist testified that “there is [not] anything that can be done, programming, services with the boys at this time, that could . . . reunify these children with their parents.” Moreover, the district court found and the record substantially supports that appellants’ therapist testified that B.D.M. is “incapable” of developing necessary parenting skills because “he does not take responsibility for his actions” and “the children will suffer even more harm if they are returned to his care.” The court also found and the record substantially supports that the intensive therapy necessary to reunify appellants with their children would take a minimum of nine months to one year and could be indefinite, with appellants’ relationship with T.F. and E.M. never improving because the children have no bond or attachment with appellants. Nothing in the record supports a finding that additional active efforts would lead to reunification between appellants and T.F. and E.M. 8
  • 9. Appellants argue that various facts in the record indicate that the county’s efforts to reunify them with T.F. and E.M. were not active, stressing that Brooks did not meet with them regarding the development of their child-safety plans between May or June 2011 and January 2012 and that the county provided them insufficient assistance to begin individual therapy. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive in consideration of the evidence demonstrating the county’s active reunification efforts, testimony corroborating that the county engaged in active reunification efforts, and this court’s “considerable deference” to a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights. Id. Affirmed. 9