Cited by

8 Chemical Dependency Generally, when placing a child outside of the home of a parent, “the evidence relating to [the decision] must address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing.”

Termination of a parent ’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period .”

Appellant relies on (vacating an order of termination of the parental rights of a juvenile mother and remanding for further proceedings).

6 Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for times when it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

-02 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

There must be evidence that “the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

There must be evidence that “the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

Termination of a parent’s rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

see also S.E.P., d at 385 (holding appellate courts generall y review orders terminating parental rights “to determine whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria”).

d 76, 92 (Minn. App. 2012).

In re Welfare of Chosa , (emphasis added) (citations omitted); (“In addition to the statutory grounds, the petitioner must show that conditions justifying termination exist at the time of trial and will continue to exist for an indeterminate period.”), r

() , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Welfare Dept. v. Beck (In re Welfare of Chosa)

In addition, in In re Welfare of Chosa , the supreme court reversed a termination based on insufficient evidence and stated that “proper authorities ” should “carefully monitor the situation and promptly seek termination of [the mother’s] parental rights again if she is unable to meet the challenge of parenthood.”

See, -69 (Minn. 1980); J.R.B., d at 904-05.

and that it must appear that the present conditions of neglect wil l continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

When issuing a TPR order, the district court must make “clear and specific findings which conform to the statutory requirements.”

review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

District courts must “make clear and specific findings which conform to the statutory requirements for terminatio n adjudications.” In re Welfare of Chosa

relies on In re Welfare of Chosa for the proposition t hat “evidence relating to termination must address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing.”

A “natural parent” is presumed to be “a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child.”

15 A “natural parent” is presumed to be “a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child.”

This court presumes “that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child.”

Termination of parental rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

In re Welfare of Chosa , (“[E]vidence relating to termination must addr ess conditions that exist at the time of the hearing .

We presume "that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child," In re Welfare of Chosa , , 769 (Minn. 1980), and "custody of their children should not be taken from them but for grave and weighty reasons," In re Welfare of P.J.K.

D E C I S I O N Under Minnesota law, courts presume “that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child, ” and “custody of their children should not be taken from them but f or grave and weighty reasons, ” (quotation omitted).

Termination of parental rights is intended for those situations in which it appears “that the 12 present conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.”

The district court must “make clear and specific findings which conform to the st atutory requirements for termination” and those findings must “address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing.”

argues that the county failed to prove that the “pre sent conditions of neglect will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.” See In re Welfare of Chosa