Apparently a clean house goes a long way in Minnesota.

Yesterday the Minnesota Court of Appeals clarified what exactly a “Child in need of protection or services” means under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2008).

A child is not a child in need of protection or services unless one of the enumerated child-protection grounds exists and the child needs protection or services as a result. The list of child-protection grounds is here.

This means that the child can suffer any of the horrible things listed, like child prostitution or medical neglect and the court can still find that the child is ineligible for protection. This prevents the removal of children from parents who were not parties to the abuse – ie, the babysitter is molesting the child without the parent’s knowledge. But in yesterday’s opinion, the court seems to apply this “clarification” to a situation where the parent was the abuser.

Yesterday’s case involved a mother with a toddler:

[The mother] is also the biological parent of four other children. [The mother's] parental rights to these children were voluntarily terminated in 2002. In that case, the district court initially held that the children were in need of protection or services based upon the following findings:

1. (the mother) engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with her children;
2. the children had been exposed to long-term neglect including, but not limited to, their dental and physical health, inappropriate exposure to sexual behavior, homelessness, and unsafe caretakers;
3. (the mother) was in need of a thorough psychological/psychiatric examination, including a psychosexual evaluation;
4. It was in the children’s best interest not to return to (the mother’s) custody at that time.

Appellant Ramsey County Community Human Services Department (department) filed a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services (CHIPS) petition on February 1, 2008, alleging that the child is a child in need of protection or services. The petition alleged the following grounds in support of a finding that the child is a child in need of protection or services:

1. The child resides with a perpetrator of domestic child abuse or child abuse.
2. The child is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, or other required care for her physical or mental health or morals because [the mother] is unable or unwilling to provide care.
3. The child is without proper parental care because of the emotional, mental, or physical disability, or state of immaturity of the mother.
4. The child’s behavior, condition, or environment is such as to be injurious or dangerous to the child or others.

Despite its recognition that services would be beneficial, the district court concluded that it was compelled to hold [the department] to its burden of proof stating, “The fear that [the mother's] history of child abuse might be repeated is not sufficient to meet [the department‟s] legal burden.” The district court based its conclusion on “direct evidence concerning [the mother's] care of the child, her maintenance of her home and her interactions with the child.”

The court declined to adopt the rule that a child who was abused at any point could be removed without a present danger to the child.

And it seems like this mother passed the test:

The assigned caseworker of seven months observed nothing to suggest [the mother] was not providing for [the child’s] needs during the worker’s 20 visits to the home.

The lesson seems to be if you clean up your act, you can keep your kids.

Read the full opinion here.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. S. W., Parent. Minnesota Court of Appeals A08-2243. Ramsey County District Court. File No. 62-JV-08-457

Tags: Family Law, parental rights termination