Cited by

of R.W., n.2 (Minn. 2004) (recognizing that only one statutory ground must be proven to support termination of parental rights).

of R.W., d 49, 55 n.2 (Minn. 2004) (recognizing that only one statutory ground must be proven to support termination of parental ri ghts).

of R.W., , 55 (Minn. 2004).

of R.W., (stating that to affirm TPR, one statutory ground for TPR must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and the record must show TPR is in the best interests of the child).

of R .W., (quotation omitted).

(discussing the statutory ground for termination that reasonable efforts have failed under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

of R.W., d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004), so long as the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family if reasonable efforts were required, In re Child.

& n.2 (Minn. 2004) (recognizing that only one statutory ground mu st be proven to support termination of parental rights).

of R.W., d 49, 55 (Minn. 2004).

(holding that findings regarding best in terests of child, without findings on existence of at least one statutory ground, was inadequate to support involuntary termination).

& n.2 (Minn. 2004) (recognizing that only one statutory ground needs to be proven to support termination of parental rights).

See, (stating, in a termination of parental rights appeal, that “[a]bandonment may be established .

see Minn. Stat. § 260.012 (2020) (concerning reasonable efforts); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

(stating “the district 23 court was not required to consider long -term foster care .

(holding appellate court may affirm the termination of parental rights if one statutory ground is supported b y clear and convincing evidence).

(emphasis added) (quotation omitted) .

(explaining that the county must preserve existing relationships that are in the children’s best interests), and no evidence suggests that father took the initiative during his i mprisonment to locate or communicate with t he children in any fashion.