Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766.

166 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. and D. A., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Evidence to support termination of a parent’s rights “must address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing.” In re Welfare of Chosa , see In re Welfare of P.R.L.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. Y., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. C. a/k/a Q. N. F. (W.), Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. C. a/k/a Q. N. F. (W.), Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The evidence in a termination case “must address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. Y., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of mother’s past history and do not address “conditions that existed at the time of termination.” To support an order terminating parental rights, the district court must “make clear and specific findings which conform to the statutory requirements for termination” and those findings must “address conditions that exist at the time of the [termination] hearing.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. B. and S. N.-J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.L.T. and J.T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.L.T. and J.T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. W. N. and J. L. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. W. N. and J. L. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Welfare of the Children of M.A.H. 839 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of M.A.H. 839 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Re the Welfare of the Children of T.R. 750 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of T.R. 750 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 2008
As we noted when reversing the termination of a mother’s parental rights in we "express our desire that the proper authorities carefully monitor the situation and promptly seek termination of [T.M.'s] parental rights again if [he] is unable to meet the challenge of parenthood."
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.D. 731 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.D. 731 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In one case, the supreme court acknowledged that its decision to vacate a termination of parental rights was “admittedly influenced by the disclosures that [the mother was] presently caring for her second child and that the proposed plan for [the child in need of protection or services’s] placement ha[d] been ineffective, facts not available to the juvenile court.”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.W. 727 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.W. 727 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Children of Vasquez 658 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Children of Vasquez 658 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
But the district court must make clear and specific findings that “conform to the statutory requirements for termination adjudications.” (citation omitted).
In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., S.Z., d at 893 (when making termination decision, court should not rely primarily on history, but “to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent’s inability to care for his or her child” (quotation omitted)); cf (holding termination of parental rights of 18-year-old unmarried mother was error where it did not *590 appear that the conditions leading to the termination would be “prolonged and indeterminate”); (holding parental rights of father erroneous
In Re PT 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., S.Z., d at 893 (when making termination decision, court should not rely primarily on history, but "to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent's inability to care for his or her child" (quotation omitted)); (holding termination of parental rights of 18-year-old unmarried mother was error where it did not *590 appear that the conditions leading to the termination would be "prolonged and indeterminate"); (holding parental rights of father erroneous
In Re the Welfare of D.L.R.D. 656 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of D.L.R.D. 656 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
see also In re Klugman, 256 Minn. 113 , 118, , 428-29 (1959) (stating that “the presumption is that the parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child, and the burden is upon him who asserts the contrary to prove it by satisfactory evidence.”).
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Child of E.V. 634 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 622 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 622 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2001
On appeal, the court of appeals determined that the district court did not make specific factual findings concerning current conditions sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory condition justifying termination was satisfied at the time the stay was lifted, as required by
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 606 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of P.R.L. 606 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Appellant argues that the June 1999 amended order lifting the stay and entering the order terminating her parental rights is improper because it does not contain findings addressing “conditions that exist[ed] at the time of the hearing.”
In Re the Welfare of A.V. 593 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of A.V. 593 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Compare (noting the [previously] strong burden upon the party seeking termination and the presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of a child), with M.D.O., d at 378 (reinstating a trial court termination decision based on the best interests of the
Hassing v. Lancaster 570 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hassing v. Lancaster 570 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(evidence of unfitness in termination of parental rights must address conditions at the time of the hearing).
In Re the Welfare of A.J.C. 556 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of A.J.C. 556 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of S.Z. 547 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1996
In Re the Welfare of S.Z. 547 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1996
In Re the Welfare of A.D. 535 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1995
In Re the Welfare of A.D. 535 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1995
In Re the Welfare of J.S. 470 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of J.S. 470 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of M.S.S. 465 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of M.S.S. 465 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by