FLCS No. 130: Week Ending March 25, 2010

The Court of Appeals released just two unpublished family law decisions this week, including opinions affirming termination of a mother's parental rights (Welfare of the Children of B.J.M.), and affirming a father's parenting time schedule and alcohol monitoring requirement (Welsch v. Welsch).

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• Welfare of the Children of B.J.M. (Unpublished) Appellant-minor daughter challenged the district court’s termination of her mother’s parental rights. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights in lieu of transferring custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and was in appellant’s best interests. (Hennepin County, Judge Lefler)
  
  Respondent-Hennepin County began providing services to appellant’s mother in August 2007, after receiving concerns about the mother’s alcohol abuse. The voluntary case plan established by respondent required the mother to abstain from alcohol use and submit to alcohol monitoring, complete a chemical dependency assessment and comply with recommendations, obtain safe housing and other necessities for her family, and provide for her children’s wellbeing by, among other things, ensuring that they attended school. In February 2008, the district court adjudicated appellant and her brother CHIPS based on the mother’s continued alcohol abuse, unsafe home, and the children’s school attendance problems. Several social workers became involved to address appellant’s issues and to look out for appellant, who was diagnosed with mental retardation and depressive disorder. Appellant and her brother were placed in their maternal grandmother’s care, and later in foster care. As the mother continually failed to comply with her case plan, respondent moved for TPR and the district court granted the motion on three statutory grounds. The district court ordered appellant’s continued placement in foster care, over appellant’s objection and stated preference that she be placed in her grandmother’s custody and that her mother’s parental rights not be terminated.
  
  On appeal, appellant argued that the district court’s decision was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not in her best interests. The appellate court disagreed, noting that while a child’s preference is a factor and placement with family is preferred, here there was significant evidence that the mother’s behavior was unlikely to change and that the grandmother was not a suitable placement option because she continued to deny appellant’s mental health problems. The appellate court therefore affirmed TPR and appellant’s placement in foster care.

  Full Opinion

• Welsch v. Welsch (Unpublished) Appellant-father contested the district court’s denial of his motion for amended findings or a new trial regarding child custody and parenting time. The appellate court affirmed because the district court acted within its discretion. (Hennepin County, Judge [FLCS Judge TE])
  
  Appellant and respondent-mother divorced in 2006. Upon divorce, the parties stipulated to a parenting plan regarding their son and daughter, under which appellant received parenting time subject to his abstaining from alcohol before and during parenting time, submitting to random alcohol testing, and ensuring that the children were not exposed to pornography or sex addicts during parenting time. Appellant apparently did not meet these stipulations, and he voluntarily suspended his parenting time with his daughter. In July 2007, after appellant informed the parties’ parenting consultant that he would not submit to random alcohol monitoring, respondent moved for sole legal and physical custody, and to suspend appellant’s parenting time. After several bouts in which appellant’s parenting time was suspended and reinstated, the parties agreed that respondent would have sole physical custody of the children and that appellant would not use drugs or alcohol during parenting time. They disputed the length of time that appellant should be subject to alcohol monitoring, and the amount of parenting time appellant would have with his son. The district court ordered alcohol monitoring for six months and parenting time every other weekend, plus a couple of alternating weeknights. Appellant moved for amended findings or a new trial, and the district court denied the motion.
  
  On appeal, appellant first argued that the district court should have granted his motion for amended findings or a new trial regarding parenting time with his son. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the district court’s decision was based on significant evidence that appellant only sporadically showed interest in his children. Appellant next argued that the district court should have ordered alcohol monitoring for only three months instead of six. The appellate court again disagreed, finding the evidence to “more than justify” this requirement.

  Full Opinion