The Court of Appeals of Minnesota affirms the district court adjudication of the child as a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS). The Court rejected parents’ argument that a CHIPS adjudication under the relevant statute requires a showing of “criminal activity, an abuser in the home, or proof of actual mental or physical injury to the child.” The court further rejected parents’ challenge to the district court’s findings of fact because the findings were not “clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.”
The child contracted HIV from the mother after parents’ initial refusal to consent to HIV testing and treatment. He suffered from a series of health complications shortly after his birth, and parents eventually consented to both testing and treatment. Child tested positive and was hospitalized for three weeks after birth. Parents reluctantly agreed to bring him to necessary medical follow-ups only with the threat of county involvement. However, they missed two mandatory appointments and planned to miss others, leading to this adjudication.