Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of K.T., 327 N.W.2d 13.

75 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. M. S. and J. J. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. A. W. and C. M. M., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 13, 18 (Minn. 1982) (holding that “stability [of the child] is a factor which must be given high priority”); -21 (Minn. App. 1987) (explaining that stability includes the amount of time a child has spent in out-of-home placement).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L.W. and J.H.O., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(considering best interests of the child in the context of a motion to vacate a voluntary termination of parental rights).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. J. S. and C. L., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Competing interests include health considerations, a stable environment, and the child’s preference.” (“In considering the best interests of a child, stability is a factor which must be given high priority”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of S. F. S. and M. A. B., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. D. T. and J. M. O., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Good cause” is a flexible standard, though, and it can be found “under a variety of circumstances.” W.L.P., d at 712 (quotation omitted); compare -19 (Min n. 1982) (upholding the tr ial 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 that she was able to take care of a second child), and In re Welfare of J.M.S.
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
–17 (Minn. 1982) (“It is well settled that a party may not raise for the first time on appeal a matter not presented to the court below.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 515B.4-113(g) (2018) (“This section does not in any manner ab rogate the provisions of chapter 327A relating to statutory warranties for housing .
Ripley Karen Bresson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“It is well settled that a party may not raise for the first time on appeal a matter not presented to the court below.” -17 (Minn. 1982).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. R. T. and B. M. K., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Guardianship of Daniel J. Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. L. K.-S., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Where a court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, they will not be reversed.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“This court has adopted very stringent standards which must be met before parental rights will be terminated.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: I. C. G. and T. A. T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C.F., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C.F., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
997); (reviewing district court’s decision to allow parent to withdraw voluntary termination of parental rights for abuse of discretion), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).1 The parent bears the burden of showing a “serious and compelling reason” to justify “once again uproot[ing] the child.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.L.L. 801 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.L.L. 801 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
494 n. 2 (Minn.1997); -17 (Minn.1982).
In Re the Welfare of the Child of W.L.P. 678 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of the Child of W.L.P. 678 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Good cause” under the voluntary termination statute “exists under a variety 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); (concludi
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-17 (Minn.1982); review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
Robinson v. State 567 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Robinson v. State 567 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp. 566 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1997
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp. 566 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1997
Bast v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 562 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bast v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 562 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-17 (Minn.1982) (failure to raise issue before district court generally prevents its consideration on appeal).
Matter of Welfare of DDG 558 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1997
Matter of Welfare of DDG 558 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1997
-18 (Minn.1982) (explaining that a change of mind or circumstances is insufficient); , 428 (Minn.1978).
In Re the Welfare of D.D.G. 553 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of D.D.G. 553 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of J.D.N. 504 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of J.D.N. 504 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(cases involving involuntary termination of parental rights do not apply to cases involving voluntary termination of parental rights).
In Re the Welfare of S.F. 482 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Welfare of S.F. 482 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(a parent’s lack of contact with child and belief that she could not care for child financially are sufficient to provide good cause under statute).
In Re Estate of Abesy 470 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re Estate of Abesy 470 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Welfare of NMC 447 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Welfare of NMC 447 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Some serious and compelling reason must exist in order to once again uproot the child and dramatically change his living environment.”
Nordin v. L.S. Donaldson Co. 441 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nordin v. L.S. Donaldson Co. 441 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bush Terrace Homeowners Ass'n v. Ridgeway 437 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Last v. Last 438 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1989

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by