This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1757
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. P. (f/k/a P. P.) and P. P., Parents.
Filed May 6, 2024 Affirmed Frisch, Judge
Otter Tail County District Court File No. 56-JV-23-1509
Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant- father P.P.)
Michelle Eldien, Otter Tail County Attorney, Kathleen J. Schur, Assistant County Attorney, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (for respondent Otter Tail County Department of Human Services)
P.P. (confidential address) (pro se respondent-mother)
Deanne Raitz, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and
Frisch, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FRISCH, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the termination of his parental rights. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing father’s interest in maintaining the
parent-child relationship against the children’s best interests, we affirm. FACTS
Appellant-father P.P. and mother have six joint children. Father and mother resided
together until fall 2021. Around that time, mother obtained an order for protection (OFP)
against father. Father violated the OFP and was imprisoned. Father had supervised
visitation with his children over Zoom, which was coordinated through a parenting-time
center. In spring 2022, the parenting-time center ended its involvement in coordinating
father’s visitation when he violated the center’s rules.
In April 2022, following the end of the involvement of the parenting-time center,
father forcibly entered mother’s parents’ home, where mother was living with the children.
Father was not permitted to be at the home due to the OFP. Father hit mother in the head
with a gun and shot mother twice. The children were in the home during the incident.
Mother was hospitalized and ultimately survived her injuries. In May, father pleaded guilty
to attempted second-degree murder.
In July 2023, respondent Otter Tail County Human Services petitioned to terminate
father’s parental rights. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and ruled
that the county was not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent placement or to place
the children with father pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(1) (2022). See Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 8(2) (2022) (providing that a district court may make a finding that
“reasonable efforts for reunification are not required as provided under section 260.012”).
In October 2023, the parties including father appeared for an evidentiary hearing.
The district court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that
father is palpably unfit to parent and that the children experienced egregious harm under
2 Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), (6) (2022). The district court determined that
termination was in the children’s best interests and that their interest outweighed any
interest of father in maintaining the parent-child relationship. The district court terminated
father’s parental rights and ordered that mother have sole legal custody and sole physical
custody of the children.
Father appeals.
DECISION
A district court may involuntarily terminate parental rights if: (1) the county made
reasonable efforts toward reunification or reasonable efforts are not required; (2) there is
clear and convincing evidence that a statutory condition exists to support termination under
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b); and (3) the proposed termination is in the child’s best
interests. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.301, subds. 1(b), 7-8, .317, subd. 1 (2022); see also In re
Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). Father challenges only
the district court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Specifically, father argues that the district court’s determination regarding father’s interest
in maintaining the parent-child relationship is erroneous because it “fails to give adequate
weight to father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship.” Father points to
his love for his children, his efforts to better himself while in prison, his ability to address
the children’s mental-health needs, his determination to rectify his actions, and a lack of
negative reactions by the children to Zoom contact with him prior to the April 2022
incident. We note that father does not challenge the district court’s determinations that
3 clear and convincing evidence established that he is palpably unfit to parent and that the
children experienced egregious harm resulting from father’s actions.
A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s
interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving
the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare
of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring the district court to address these factors in
a termination proceeding). “The paramount consideration in termination of parental rights
proceedings is the best interests of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of B.J.-M., 744
N.W.2d 669, 672 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). If the interests of a child and a parent
conflict, the child’s interests prevail. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7. “The ‘best interests
of the child’ means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated.” Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.511(a) (2022). We “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district
court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.” A.M.C.,
920 N.W.2d at 657.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the children’s interest in
safety conflicted with and outweighed father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child
relationship. The district court acknowledged father’s interest in maintaining the parent-
child relationship in its conclusions of law, writing, “[Father] states that he wants to
maintain his relationships with his children and that he wants to see them.”
The district court continued, “The children have a competing interest for safety that
favors termination of parental rights, and that outweighs whatever interest [father] has in
4 maintaining his parent-child relationships.” In concluding that the children’s interest in
safety outweighed father’s interest in preserving the relationship, the district court pointed
to father’s conduct during the April 2022 incident that arose “due to concern for his
children” and father’s history of violating domestic-abuse no-contact orders (DANCOs). 1
The district court expressed concern that prior court orders had not been effective at
mitigating safety concerns and that father may use the children to control mother. The
district court also noted that the children were doing well because of the stability of their
environment and that the mental health of the two oldest children had improved with
individual therapy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1757
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: P. P. (f/k/a P. P.) and P. P., Parents.
Filed May 6, 2024 Affirmed Frisch, Judge
Otter Tail County District Court File No. 56-JV-23-1509
Anne M. Carlson, Anne M. Carlson Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant- father P.P.)
Michelle Eldien, Otter Tail County Attorney, Kathleen J. Schur, Assistant County Attorney, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (for respondent Otter Tail County Department of Human Services)
P.P. (confidential address) (pro se respondent-mother)
Deanne Raitz, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and
Frisch, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FRISCH, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the termination of his parental rights. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing father’s interest in maintaining the
parent-child relationship against the children’s best interests, we affirm. FACTS
Appellant-father P.P. and mother have six joint children. Father and mother resided
together until fall 2021. Around that time, mother obtained an order for protection (OFP)
against father. Father violated the OFP and was imprisoned. Father had supervised
visitation with his children over Zoom, which was coordinated through a parenting-time
center. In spring 2022, the parenting-time center ended its involvement in coordinating
father’s visitation when he violated the center’s rules.
In April 2022, following the end of the involvement of the parenting-time center,
father forcibly entered mother’s parents’ home, where mother was living with the children.
Father was not permitted to be at the home due to the OFP. Father hit mother in the head
with a gun and shot mother twice. The children were in the home during the incident.
Mother was hospitalized and ultimately survived her injuries. In May, father pleaded guilty
to attempted second-degree murder.
In July 2023, respondent Otter Tail County Human Services petitioned to terminate
father’s parental rights. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and ruled
that the county was not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent placement or to place
the children with father pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(1) (2022). See Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 8(2) (2022) (providing that a district court may make a finding that
“reasonable efforts for reunification are not required as provided under section 260.012”).
In October 2023, the parties including father appeared for an evidentiary hearing.
The district court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that
father is palpably unfit to parent and that the children experienced egregious harm under
2 Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4), (6) (2022). The district court determined that
termination was in the children’s best interests and that their interest outweighed any
interest of father in maintaining the parent-child relationship. The district court terminated
father’s parental rights and ordered that mother have sole legal custody and sole physical
custody of the children.
Father appeals.
DECISION
A district court may involuntarily terminate parental rights if: (1) the county made
reasonable efforts toward reunification or reasonable efforts are not required; (2) there is
clear and convincing evidence that a statutory condition exists to support termination under
Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b); and (3) the proposed termination is in the child’s best
interests. Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.301, subds. 1(b), 7-8, .317, subd. 1 (2022); see also In re
Welfare of Child. of S.E.P., 744 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Minn. 2008). Father challenges only
the district court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Specifically, father argues that the district court’s determination regarding father’s interest
in maintaining the parent-child relationship is erroneous because it “fails to give adequate
weight to father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship.” Father points to
his love for his children, his efforts to better himself while in prison, his ability to address
the children’s mental-health needs, his determination to rectify his actions, and a lack of
negative reactions by the children to Zoom contact with him prior to the April 2022
incident. We note that father does not challenge the district court’s determinations that
3 clear and convincing evidence established that he is palpably unfit to parent and that the
children experienced egregious harm resulting from father’s actions.
A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s
interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving
the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” In re Welfare
of Child of A.M.C., 920 N.W.2d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also
Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii) (requiring the district court to address these factors in
a termination proceeding). “The paramount consideration in termination of parental rights
proceedings is the best interests of the child.” In re Welfare of Child of B.J.-M., 744
N.W.2d 669, 672 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). If the interests of a child and a parent
conflict, the child’s interests prevail. Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 7. “The ‘best interests
of the child’ means all relevant factors to be considered and evaluated.” Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.511(a) (2022). We “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district
court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.” A.M.C.,
920 N.W.2d at 657.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the children’s interest in
safety conflicted with and outweighed father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child
relationship. The district court acknowledged father’s interest in maintaining the parent-
child relationship in its conclusions of law, writing, “[Father] states that he wants to
maintain his relationships with his children and that he wants to see them.”
The district court continued, “The children have a competing interest for safety that
favors termination of parental rights, and that outweighs whatever interest [father] has in
4 maintaining his parent-child relationships.” In concluding that the children’s interest in
safety outweighed father’s interest in preserving the relationship, the district court pointed
to father’s conduct during the April 2022 incident that arose “due to concern for his
children” and father’s history of violating domestic-abuse no-contact orders (DANCOs). 1
The district court expressed concern that prior court orders had not been effective at
mitigating safety concerns and that father may use the children to control mother. The
district court also noted that the children were doing well because of the stability of their
environment and that the mental health of the two oldest children had improved with
individual therapy. The district court acknowledged father’s testimony about his want for
parenting time through the county so that mother would not be involved, his studies in
prison, and his doctorate degree in religion. The district court weighed this interest against
the children’s interest, and properly prioritized the children’s interests. Minn. Stat.
§ 260C.301, subd. 7.
The record supports the district court’s findings that the children’s interest in safety
competed with father’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship. The GAL
1 Before the evidentiary hearing, the county moved the district court to take judicial notice of the “Findings of Fact and Court Orders relating to the parents or children contained” in five criminal and one family-law case files. At the evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the county’s motion and took judicial notice of the filings. See Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 3.02, subd. 3 (permitting a district court to take judicial notice of “findings of fact and court orders in the juvenile protection court file and in any other proceeding in any other court file involving the child or the child’s parent or legal custodian”). The records from these files are not included in the record on appeal. But we note that father did not object to the district court taking judicial notice of these filings and does not challenge any factual findings related to those filings on appeal. We therefore consider the district court’s findings regarding those files for purposes of our decision.
5 opined that it was not in the children’s best interests to maintain their parent-child
relationship with father “due to the trauma they have experienced as a result of the [April
2022 incident] and previously witnessed domestic violence in their home when [father]
resided with the family.” The district court credited the GAL’s testimony and discredited
father’s testimony.
Father pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder of mother. He admitted
that his presence at the home during the April 2022 incident was in violation of an OFP,
he was previously imprisoned for violating that OFP, and he was convicted of violating
two DANCOs. 2 While the social worker who testified at the evidentiary hearing could not
say that the children had a negative reaction to their virtual parenting time with father prior
to the April 2022 incident, father’s assertion that this testimony supports the determination
that his interest should be prioritized following the April 2022 incident ignores the impact
of the April 2022 incident on his relationship with the children. The children were in the
home during the April 2022 incident. Diagnostic assessments by the therapist for the two
oldest children note that the children avoided discussing past trauma but displayed
symptoms best explained by a trauma diagnosis. One child became upset when the
therapist noted father as “dad” on a piece of paper and asked the therapist to “scribble out
the word dad and then had [the therapist] cut that part of the paper off.” Given this record
and the district court’s credibility determinations, we conclude that the district court did
2 The record on appeal does not contain filings from the DANCOs or the OFP, but father does not contend that the district court’s findings regarding those filings are erroneous.
6 not abuse its discretion in determining that the children’s interest in safety outweighed
father’s interests in maintaining the parent-child relationship.
Affirmed.