FLCS No. 115: Week Ending November 6, 2009

The Court of Appeals issued two unpublished decisions this week, both affirming termination of parental rights (Welfare of the Children of C.R.S., Welfare of the Children of R.J.H. and J.L.B.).

Supreme Court Opinions (0)

The Minnesota Supreme Court did not release any opinions this week related to family law matters.

Court of Appeals Opinions (2)

• Welfare of the Children of C.R.S. (Unpublished) Appellant-mother contested the district court’s termination of her parental rights to her four children. The appellate court affirmed because erroneously admitted evidence was harmless error, and the record supported TPR on grounds of appellant’s palpable unfitness. (Hennepin County, Judge Robert M. Small)
  
  Appellant’s children were previously adjudicated CHIPS and placed out-of-home because appellant’s chemical dependency and mental health issues impaired her parenting abilities. The county became involved after appellant overdosed on drugs and blacked out in the children’s presence. Appellant received a case plan which required her to, among other things, submit to urinalysis and remain sober, complete a psychological evaluation, follow recommendations of a psychologist and mental health professionals, and participate in parenting services. Appellant completed some of her treatment programs, but relapsed and ended up missing visits with her children. The county moved for TPR. At trial, child protection workers and the children’s foster parent testified, and the county introduced four documents regarding appellant’s chemical dependency and mental health issues, which the district court admitted as business records over appellant’s hearsay objection. The district court found that TPR was supported on four statutory grounds and that TPR was in the children’s best interests.
  
  On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay documents into evidence as business records. The appellate court agreed that these documents were improperly admitted because they did not satisfy all the requirements for the business record exception in Minn. R. Ev. 803(6). However, the appellate court found admission of these documents to be harmless error because other substantial evidence in the record supported TPR on grounds that appellant was palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship. The appellate court therefore affirmed.

  Full Opinion

• Welfare of the Children of R.J.H. and J.L.B. (Unpublished) Appellant-father challenged the termination of his parental rights to his two children. The appellate court affirmed because clear and convincing evidence supported TPR on grounds of palpable unfitness and that efforts to reunite appellant with his children would be futile. (Clay County, Judge Lisa N. Borgen)
  
  The mother of the children in question was previously involved in child protection proceedings. At that time, the county began investigating the possibility of placement with appellant. An ICPC assessment revealed that, due to a traumatic brain injury, appellant functions cognitively in the bottom 1% of adults and has mental health issues that are non-correctable and will impair his ability to safely parent his children. The county provided appellant with a reunification plan that offered, among other things, parenting services, medical and mental health care, and supervised visits with the children. Appellant complied with parts of his case plan, but missed or shortened some visits with his children and was unable to make progress in much of his parenting skills. The county moved for TPR. At trial, the district court received fifty-one exhibits and heard testimony from the family skills worker, the ICPC evaluator, appellant’s psychologist, and the GAL. The district court ordered TPR on grounds that appellant was palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship and that further reunification efforts would be futile.
  
  On appeal, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support TPR. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that while it did not doubt appellant’s love for his children, substantial evidence demonstrated that appellant had diminished cognitive abilities and mental health issues that precluded him from parenting his children. The appellate court therefore affirmed TPR.

  Full Opinion