Cited by

12 There is no need for child protection involvement at this time.” While there was contradictory evidence, we provide considerable deference to the district court’s decisions because the district court “has the opportunity to see the parties as well as their witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their actions, and weigh the evidence in the light of those factors.” (quotation omitted).

v. Booth (In re Booth), (quotation omitted) (discussing district court’s broad discretion in custody determinations).

And when the rights of a child and a parent conflict, “the rights of the parent must yield.” In re Booth , (quotation omitted); see also In re P.T.

The natural rights of the parents should be carefully safeguarded but not at the expense of their children.” (); (citing this aspect of Booth in a child-in-need-of-protection-or- services appeal); In re P.T.

In re Booth, 253 Minn. 395, 400

.2d 703, 710 (Minn.App.2004) (determining that the district court “did not abuse its discretion” by terminating parental rights where “the trial court addressed the proper statutory criteria, and the evidence in the record support[ed] the trial court’s determination that [a putative father] did not rebut the presumption of unfitness”); see also In re Booth; Hennepin County Welfare Board v. Booth, 253 Minn. 395, 400-01 , -25 (1958) (stating, in the context of a commitment of children as dependent

See In re Booth; Hennepin County Welfare Board v. Booth, 253 Minn. 395, 400 , (“The natural rights of the parents should be carefully safeguarded but not at the expense of their children.

See, In re Booth, 253 Minn. 395 , , as regards the impact of improvement in conditions on the part of a parent.