A05-1460

In the Matter of the Child of: P.B.

and S.B., Parents.

Filed January 9, 2006

Reversed

Willis, Judge

Anoka County District Court

File No. J0-05-50173

Jeffrey J. Storey, 277 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Suite 310, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (for appellants P.B. and S.B.)

Mark D. Fiddler, Fiddler Law Office, 510 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1161 (for respondent guardian ad litem Greg King)

Wright S. Walling, Sherri D. Hawley, Walling, Berg & Debele, P.A., 121 South Eighth Street, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for amicus curiae North American Council on Adoptable Children)

Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WILLIS, Judge

In this appeal, appellants challenge an order requiring them to contribute to the cost of their child’s out-of-home placement. Appellants argue that (1) the guardian ad litem lacked standing to request parental contribution to the cost of their child’s out-of-home placement and (2) the district court erred by not applying the parental-contribution exception found in Minn. Stat. § 252.27, subd. 2a (2004). Because we conclude that section 252.27, subdivision 2a, applies, we reverse.

FACTS

In 2001, appellants P.B. and S.B. (parents) adopted T.A.B. after providing her with foster care for 15 months. Parents received an adoption subsidy because T.A.B. has brittle-bone disease and her family history of abuse places her at high risk of developing other disabilities. T.A.B. was later diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder, clinical depression/dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a potential personality disorder.

During the next three years, parents had difficulty bonding with T.A.B. She had violent episodes and threatened to kill parents and herself several times. Parents had to call the police to control T.A.B., and in May and November 2004, T.A.B. was committed to the psychiatric ward at Riverside Hospital. After the second stay at Riverside Hospital, T.A.B. was placed in a foster home, and parents filed a petition to terminate their parental rights.

The district court denied parents’ petition, citing their failure to show good cause for the termination. Anoka County filed a petition alleging that T.A.B. was a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS), and parents admitted to the facts alleged in the petition. T.A.B.’s guardian ad litem (GAL) requested a financial hearing so that the district court could determine parents’ contribution to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2004).

Parents objected to the imposition of a parental contribution to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement. They argued that Minn. Stat. § 252.27, subd. 2a (2004), exempts them from the contribution requirements in section 260C.331. The district court found that parents have the ability to contribute, and because it concluded that “[t]he provisions of Minn. Stat. § 252.27 are not applicable when placement is court-ordered,” it ordered parents to contribute to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement.

After parents filed a motion for amended findings of facts and conclusions of law, the district court issued an amended order finding that parents failed to demonstrate that T.A.B. falls within the provisions of section 252.27. The district court incorporated its findings and conclusions from its previous order and again required parents to contribute to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement. This appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N

Parents first argue that the GAL did not have standing to request that parents contribute to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement. Challenges to standing are questions of law, which this court reviews de novo. Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 2004).

Standing is the requirement that a litigant have a sufficient stake in the controversy to seek relief from the court. State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn. 1996). Standing exists when a “litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Rukavina, 684 N.W.2d at 531 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2205 (1975)). The focus is “on the party seeking to get his complaint before a . . . court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” Sundberg v. Abbott, 423 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Minn. App. 1988) (alteration in original) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952 (1968)), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).

Guardians ad litem are parties to juvenile-protection proceedings. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 21.01, subd. 2(a); In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., 655 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2003). They are appointed by the court to “protect the interests of the minor.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subd. 5 (2004). A GAL has a right to, inter alia, be present at all hearings, to conduct discovery, to bring motions before the court, and to argue in support of or against a petition. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 21.02.

Here, the GAL requested that the district court order parents to contribute to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement. Parents argue that the GAL lacks standing to request parental contribution because T.A.B.’s interests are not affected by a determination of parental contribution. The GAL argues that public funding might not cover T.A.B.’s costs in the future and that it is, therefore, in T.A.B.’s interests to request that parents be required to contribute. We agree. Moreover, standing “focuses on the party . . .not on the issues.” Sundberg,423 N.W.2d at 688 (quoting Flast, 392 U.S. at 99, 88 S. Ct. at 1952). Guardians ad litem are parties to the juvenile-protection proceedings. Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 21.01, subd. 2(a). We conclude that because the issue of parental contribution affects T.A.B.’s interests and because the GAL is a party to the proceeding, the GAL has standing to request parental contribution to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement.

II.

Parents next argue that Minn. Stat. § 252.27 (2004) exempts them from the parental-contribution requirement in Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2004). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Nash v. Wollan, 656 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2003). But we defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.

When a court orders a child into the custody of a social-services agency, the costs of the placement are “charge[d] upon the welfare funds of the county in which proceedings are held.” Minn. Stat. § 260C.331, subd. 1(a). The child’s parents are required to reimburse the county for the costs of care with income attributable to the child, including an adoption subsidy, during the period of care. Id., subd. 1(b); County of Ramsey v. Wilson, 526 N.W.2d 384, 387 (Minn. App. 1995). And if the income “attributable to the child [is] not enough to reimburse the county for the full cost of the care,” the parents must contribute to the cost based on their ability to support the child. Minn. Stat. § 260C.331, subd. 1(c).

When a child “who has mental retardation or a related condition, or a physical disability or emotional disturbance is in 24-hour care outside the home including respite care, in a facility licensed by the commissioner of human services, the cost of services shall be paid by the county.” Minn. Stat. § 252.27, subd. 1. The child’s parents must make a monthly contribution based on their ability to pay, “unless the child is married or has been married, parental rights have been terminated, or the child’s adoption is subsidized according to section 259.67 or through title IV-E of the Social Security Act.” Id., subds. 2, 2a.

Parents argue that because T.A.B. is emotionally disturbed and her adoption is subsidized under section 259.67, the district court erred by not applying the contribution exemption in section 252.27. The GAL does not argue that section 252.27 does not apply to the costs of foster care and concedes that if T.A.B. has a qualifying condition, section 252.27 exempts parents from contributing to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement.

The district court first ruled that section 252.27 does not apply because T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement was court-ordered. The plain language of section 252.27 exempts parents who receive an adoption subsidy from contributing to the costs of 24-hour care outside the home for a child with a qualifying condition. Id., subd. 1, 2a(a). Nothing in section 252.27 prevents its application when the “24-hour care” is court-ordered or is the result of the juvenile-protection procedures set forth in chapter 260C. See Minn. Stat. § 252.27. We therefore conclude that section 252.27 applies when a qualifying child is placed outside the home by the county through the juvenile-protection procedures found in chapter 260C.

In its second order, the district court concluded that section 252.27 does not apply because parents failed to establish that T.A.B. has a qualifying emotional disturbance or physical disability. Although section 252.27 does not define “emotional disturbance” or “physical disability,” when administering section 252.27, the department of human services uses the definition of “emotional disturbance” in section 254.4871, subdivision 15. See Minn. R. 9550.6210, subp. 8 (2003) (providing that “‘emotional disturbance’ has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 245.4871, subdivision 15”). “Emotional disturbance,” therefore, as used in section 252.27, is

an organic disorder of the brain or a clinically significant disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, memory, or behavior that:

(1) is listed in the clinical manual of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM), current edition, code range 290.0 to 302.99 or 306.0 to 316.0 or the corresponding code in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-MD), current edition, Axes I, II, or III; and

(2) seriously limits a child’s capacity to function in primary aspects of daily living such as personal relations, living arrangements, work, school, and recreation.

Minn. Stat. § 245.4871, subd. 15 (2004).

The record shows that T.A.B. has reactive attachment disorder, clinical depression/dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a potential personality disorder. The GAL concedes that these diagnoses are listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but he argues that parents failed to show that T.A.B.’s disorders “‘seriously limit’ her ‘capacity to function in primary aspects of daily living such as personal relations, living arrangements, work, school, and recreation.’”

But the record shows that because of T.A.B.’s disorders, she has had violent outbursts, has threatened to kill herself and others, and was twice placed in a psychiatric ward. T.A.B.’s disorders were the basis of parents’ petition to terminate their parental rights and the county’s CHIPS petition. T.A.B.’s disorders have seriously limited her ability to function in her family, home, and other primary aspects of daily living. We conclude that the district court’s finding that parents failed to demonstrate that T.A.B. suffers from an emotional disturbance as defined in section 245.4871, subdivision 15, is clearly erroneous.

Because the parental-contribution exemption in Minn. Stat. § 252.27, subd. 2a, applies when a qualifying child is placed in 24-hour care outside of the home and because T.A.B. qualifies under section 252.27, subdivision 2a, we reverse the district court’s order requiring parents to contribute to the costs of T.A.B.’s out-of-home placement.

Reversed.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.