Cited by

III, d 538, 542 (Minn. 1982) (concluding that the failure to comply with statutory requirement for a case plan did not require reversal “on the facts of this case”); –28 (Minn. 1978) (concluding that the failure to follow the procedure to establish good cause for voluntary termination “is not grounds for reversal,” and noting that substantial evidence supported the termination decision).

d 424, 427-28 (Minn. 1978) ( affirming a voluntary TPR despite a district court’s errors in obtaining evidence of good cause when those errors were corrected at a later hearing).

(concluding that mother had “good cause” for requesting termin ation where she desired that her child to have two adoptive parents), with In re Welfare of Alle , -77 (Minn. 1975) (holding that good cause did not ex ist when the parent’s sole motivation for voluntary terminati

Mother’s rule 46 motion The termination order following a parent’s voluntary consent is “a final adjudication of parental rights.” (affirming denial of mother’s motion to vacate termin ation based on her voluntary consent where district court found it was in the best interest of the chil d not to vacate).

traces back to a 1978 supreme court opinion in a TPR case where the supreme court stated that “[w]here the findings of fact of the juvenile court are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, they will not be reversed.”

of circumstances.” -86 (Minn.1997); -19 (Minn.1982) (upholding the trial court’s finding of good cause when a one-year-old child had resided in a foster home since birth; the parent had not visited the child; and the parent did not believe she was able to take care of a second child); (concluding that good cause existed when the mother determined that it was in the best interests of her child to have two adoptive parents).

-18 (Minn.1982) (explaining that a change of mind or circumstances is insufficient); , 428 (Minn.1978).

P. 52.01, which provides that “[fjindings of fact * * * shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (citing Minn. R. Civ.

The standard of appellate review is whether the trial court’s findings are “supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.”

The standard of appellate review is whether the trial court’s findings are “supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” (citations omitted).

om a final order affecting a substantial right of the aggrieved person, including but not limited to an order adjudging a child to be dependent, [or] neglected * * ” The question then becomes was the trial court’s order of terminating parental rights a “final order.” The order clearly determines the outcome of this action, and as the Minnesota Supreme Court said in In The Matter of the Welfare of “[t]he termination order under § 260.221 is a final adjudication of parental rights * * * * ” Theref

ANALYSIS I. Findings of Fact/Evidence The standard of review for termination proceedings is “whether the court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” at 107 (Minn.Ct.App.1984)

Although findings of fact by the trial judge will not be overturned in a termination case unless “clearly erroneous,” , 428 (Minn.1978), this court has also stated that it “will continue to exercise great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result in accordance with the statutory grounds.”

The standard of review in a termination case is whether “the findings of fact of the juvenile court are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” (citing Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure).