Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; May 21, 1985; Minnesota; State Appellate Court
The court addressed an appeal by the parents of the 'C' children concerning a prior juvenile court order that found eight children neglected, partly due to allegations of sexual misconduct by the father with two adopted daughters. The appellate court upheld the juvenile court's findings for four children (MCC, CLC, JSC, and BRC) but reversed the findings for four others (JIC, PHC, APC, and MPC), leaving LPC in foster care unaffected by the ruling. Following review hearings in July and August 1984, the juvenile court denied the parents’ request to transfer custody of all children to Hennepin County, transferring only JSC and BRC while retaining custody of CLC, MCC, and LPC with Pipestone County Family Service Center.
The parents had initially been ordered to undergo therapeutic counseling to facilitate family reintegration, starting with psychotherapist Jane Johnston, whose reports indicated that the parents’ denial of wrongdoing hindered therapy. They later switched to psychologist Diane Stellbrecht, who reported progress and willingness to continue therapy. However, the court found Stellbrecht's assessment less credible due to her reliance on the parents' accounts and lack of awareness of significant past misconduct. At the hearings, the custody status of the children was detailed: BRC was in a treatment center, JSC was in foster care, MCC and CLC were in Pipestone area foster homes, and LPC had been in care since 1982. Notably, CLC, MCC, and LPC expressed a desire to cease visitation with their parents.
Popma recommended that jurisdiction over BRC and JSC be transferred to Minneapolis, where the children, their counselors, and parents reside. He advised that CLC remain in her current foster home long-term to avoid emotional harm from an unwanted move, and he suggested that Pipestone County be authorized to place MCC's name on the state adoption register and start placing him with a suitable family. The trial court's order incorporated these recommendations but added that LPC would also stay in his current foster home under Pipestone County's custody.
Key issues raised included whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to deny the transfer of custody of CLC to Hennepin County, whether it erred in concluding that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the family, and whether it erred by stating that no progress was made in therapy.
Minnesota law supports transferring cases for children's best interests, presuming that it is beneficial for a child to be united with their parents unless proven otherwise. The trial court determined that the county demonstrated the proposed transfer was not in the children's best interest, a conclusion supported by properly received evidence, including expert reports and testimony. Appellants contended that the court disregarded recommendations from psychology experts Johnston and Stellrecht for relocating CLC to facilitate family counseling, arguing that the court could not dismiss unanimous expert opinions. However, the court found that the experts' opinions were not identical, undermining the appellants' assertion.
Johnston provided a critical evaluation of the parents, stating that both denied any wrongdoing by the father and were unsuitable for psychotherapy due to their personal histories and lack of progress. She characterized the father as dominating and manipulative, while the mother was seen as passive and ineffective with the children. In contrast, Stellrecht, who disagreed with Johnston, based her opinions on potentially misleading information from the parents, not knowing of a serious incident of sexual misconduct involving the father until just before the hearing. The court emphasized that when expert opinions conflict, it must determine credibility, ultimately favoring Johnston’s assessment that the parents had not succeeded in counseling and had worsened the family situation.
The court also considered Brenda Popma's report, which indicated that the father's confrontational behavior obstructed visitation efforts, reinforcing Johnston's findings. Both the county and the guardian ad litem recommended that custody of CLC remain with Pipestone County, noting CLC's preference for her foster placement and her desire to avoid her parents. The court found CLC’s preference significant, especially given the father's confrontational approach towards visitation discussions. It concluded that the conditions at home had not improved and transferring custody would not serve CLC’s best interests.
The appellants argued that Pipestone County had not made reasonable efforts to return the children home due to inadequate visitation arrangements. However, the trial court found that reasonable efforts had been made but were ineffective primarily due to the father’s behavior. The father's confrontational intent during visitations, including confronting the children about their testimonies, further hindered progress. The court justified its conclusions based on the negative impact of the father's approach on the visitation process.
The children have actively resisted reunification efforts with their parents, expressing a desire for no further contact. The trial court justifiably respected the children's positions, noting the father's negative attitude and behavior hindered visitation. Psychologist Johnston's evaluation indicated the father lacks insight into his behavior, suggesting minimal chances for necessary changes for reunification. The court found that the county's reunification efforts were reasonable given the circumstances. The July 1983 order mandated successful completion of a confrontive therapy program for family restoration. However, the October 1984 order found no progress in individual or family therapy, contradicting appellants' claims of improvement based on psychologist Stellrecht's testimony. The trial court favored the evaluations from Johnston and social worker Popma, who reported continued hostility from the father and passivity from the mother. The court's decision to accept certain expert testimony over others was deemed appropriate and supported by the record. The trial court, along with the county counsel and guardian ad litem, demonstrated significant patience in addressing the family's issues. The jurisdiction over children JSC and BRC was transferred to Hennepin County Juvenile Court, while jurisdiction over CLC, MCC, and LPC remained with the Pipestone County Family Service Center based on sufficient evidence. The order was affirmed. The family comprises nine children, including two biological children and seven adopted, all with established sibling relationships. The trial court confirmed allegations of sexual abuse and noted the father's prior imprisonment for aggravated assault.
