Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-553 A11-554 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. K. and T. K., Parents Filed September 6, 2011 Reversed and remanded Stoneburner, Judge Schellhas, Judge, dissenting Rice County District Court File No. 66JV1173 James Martin, Martin Law Office, Faribault, Minnesota (for appellant T.K.) Carl Arnold, Arnold Law & Mediation L.L.C., Northfield, Minnesota (for appellant M.K.) G. Paul, Beaumaster, Rice County Attorney, Catherine M. Miller, Assistant County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for respondent County) Alexander De Marco, Public Defender's Office, Owatonna, Minnesota (for respondent C.K.) Candice Duncan, Faribault, Minnesota (guardian ad litem) Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge. SYLLABUS A juvenile court abuses its discretion by denying parents' motions brought under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 35.03, subd. 5(a), to withdraw their admissions to a petition alleging that their child is in need of protection or services when the admissions were coerced by the county's demand that parents admit to the petition in order for their child to receive needed services, the nature of the statutory grounds set forth in the petition was

misrepresented to parents, and no evidence or admission established the child's need for protection or services as a result of the existence of the statutory ground for the petition described to parents. OP I N I O N STONEBURNER, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellants, parents of a child alleged by respondent county to be a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS), challenge the juvenile court's denial of their timely motions to void or permit them to withdraw admissions to the CHIPS petition. Parents argue that (1) their admissions are void because they were not made under oath; (2) they are entitled to withdraw the admissions under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 35.03, subd. 5(a), to correct a manifest injustice because they did not understand what they were admitting; and (3) the record does not support their admissions. FACTS In November 2010, C.K., the son of appellants M.K. (mother) and T.K. (father), ran away from home. He was found, and a police officer took him home. Because the officer thought that C.K. might be at risk in his home, C.K. was placed on a 72-hour emergency hold. Respondent Rice County, through a social worker, petitioned the juvenile court for a determination that C.K. is a CHIPS based on the statutory grounds provided in Minn. Stat.

Download A11-553,A11-554, In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. K. and T. K.,

Minnesota Law