Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Welfare of Solomon, 291 N.W.2d 364.

79 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of J.J.B. 369 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re the Welfare of A.K. 373 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re the Welfare of A.K. 373 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Welfare of Clough 369 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Welfare of Clough 369 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of P.J.K. 369 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1985
In Re the Welfare of P.J.K. 369 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1985
Although those findings “will not be overturned in a termination case unless ‘clearly erroneous,’ ” this court 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.”
In Re the Welfare of K.P.C. 366 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of K.P.C. 366 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of T.J.J. 366 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of T.J.J. 366 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Welfare of Solomon, *655 -68 (Minn.1980).
Matter of Welfare of White 363 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Welfare of White 363 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The court must find “sufficient evidence that a specific statutory ground for termination exists.”
Matter of Welfare of Copus 356 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Welfare of Copus 356 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
There must be “sufficient evidence that a specific statutory ground for termination exists.”
In Re the Welfare of A.K.K. 356 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of A.K.K. 356 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Indeed, in and the court held that sporadic visitation by itself would not support termination of a parent’s rights; rather, a court must look to whether this inability to care properly for the child will continue indefinitely.
Matter of Welfare of Maas 355 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Welfare of Maas 355 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of M.M.B. 350 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of M.M.B. 350 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of K.T. 327 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
In Re the Welfare of K.T. 327 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Appellant cites for the proposition that infrequent visitation by itself is not sufficient grounds for termination.
Matter of Welfare of HGB 306 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1981
Matter of Welfare of HGB 306 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1981
Matter of Welfare of Mullins 298 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1980
Matter of Welfare of Mullins 298 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1980
Both Minnesota and California recognize that one of the purposes of a dependency decree “is to create a temporary remedy with the ultimate goal of returning the child to the natural parents.” (citing State v. Niemi, 284 Minn. 225, 229 , ); see In re James M., 65 Cal.App.3d 254, 264-65 , 135 Cal.Rptr.
Matter of Welfare of Gillispie 296 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1980
Matter of Welfare of Gillispie 296 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1980
We have said, as recently as that “parental rights may not be terminated unless the petitioner can show sufficient evidence that a specific statutory ground for termination exists.” The trial court in the instant case found the specific statutory ground of abandonment.