## Facts

- Two children, ages 11 and 10, were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care after living in extremely poor conditions with their mother.
- The father, who had an intellectual disability (IQ reported as 68), sought custody after removal from the mother.
- Both children had significant mental and emotional disabilities; one had major functional limitations, and the other had developmental delays and related symptoms.
- A custody study recommended continued county custody, citing the father’s limited learning capacity, unstable employment history, temper, and limited ability to understand the children’s special needs.
- The juvenile court ordered services and requirements including parenting education, counseling, psychological evaluation, and supervised visitation.
- The father began a group parenting class but was discontinued from it after a professional concluded he could not understand or benefit from the program; he did not complete recommended alternative individualized programming.
- The father had hostile interactions with professionals and foster parents, including verbal abuse and an incident in which he threatened a foster parent after a safety-related decision regarding a child’s toy.
- Visits were associated with negative reactions and regression by the children; visitation was interrupted after conflict, and the father went approximately one year without seeing the children.
- The county petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights on statutory grounds of palpable unfitness, failure to correct conditions following dependency despite reasonable efforts, and the children being neglected and in foster care.
- The juvenile court terminated parental rights; the court of appeals reversed; the state supreme court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination based on palpable unfitness under Minn. Stat. § 260.221, subd. 4 (1984).
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination based on failure to correct conditions following a dependency determination despite reasonable court-directed efforts under Minn. Stat. § 260.221, subd. 5 (1984).
3. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination because the children were neglected and in foster care under Minn. Stat. § 260.221, subd. 7 (1984).
4. Whether the court of appeals improperly reversed by reweighing evidence rather than assessing whether the juvenile court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.
- The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported each of the three statutory grounds found by the juvenile court.
- The court held that the court of appeals exceeded its proper role by substituting its view of the evidence for the juvenile court’s supported findings.

## Legal Principles

- Parental rights may be terminated if at least one statutory ground is proven by clear and convincing evidence and the record supports the juvenile court’s findings.
- “Palpable unfitness” may be established by specific conduct or conditions, shown to be permanent or likely to persist, that are detrimental to a child’s physical or mental health; affection alone does not defeat unfitness where the parent lacks capacity to meet the child’s needs.
- When dependency has been adjudicated, termination may be based on failure to correct conditions when reasonable, court-directed reunification efforts have been provided and have not produced sufficient change.
- A finding that a child is neglected and in foster care may be supported by prolonged foster placement, lack of a realistic prospect of safe parental care, and evidence bearing on the parent’s ability to provide minimally adequate care.
- Appellate review focuses on whether the juvenile court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record; appellate courts should not retry facts or reweigh credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated termination of the father’s parental rights because the evidence showed permanent limitations preventing him from providing minimally adequate care for two high-needs children, reasonable services had not remedied the conditions leading to dependency, and the juvenile court’s findings met the clear-and-convincing standard warranting deference on appeal.


In re Welfare of P.J.K., 369 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 1985)