Cited by

of T.A.A., (“In reviewing a decision to terminate parental rights, the appellate court determines whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support at least 13 one statutory ground for termination .

.3d 680, 696 (Minn. App. 2024), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2024); (“Even if a statutory ground for termination exists, the district court must still find that termination of parental rights or of the parent-child relationship is in the best interests of the child.” ()).

of T.A.A., see Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2024) (addressing circumstances when a county need not make reasonable efforts); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

of T.A.A., J.R.B., d at 901-02.

of T.A.A., d 703, 708 (Minn. 2005).

of T.A.A., ; see Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2024) (addressing circumstances when a county need not make reasonable efforts); see also Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

of T.A.A., n.2 (Minn. 2005) (“While we have declined to adopt a blanket prohibition on [the district court’s verbatim adoption of proposed findings], .

-05, 707, 710 (Minn. 2005) (affirming termination of parental rights when mother refused to accept responsibility to protect her children from abuse, denied drug use, and refused to recognize and address her children’s special needs).

See, (affirming determination that parent was palpably unfit, in part, because parent denied domestic abuse and had no understanding of parenting deficiencies); -09 (Minn. 2005) (affirming termination on basis of palpable unfitness because parent “refused to acknowledge her responsibility to protect her children from abuse by others”); (noting mother would not admit any parental shortcomings).

he child’s best interest.” d 680, 696 (Minn. App. 2024), rev. denied (July 19, 2024); see also K.S.F., d at 668 (“Even if a statutory ground for termination exists, the district court must still find that termination of parental rights or of the parent-child relationship is in the best interests of the child.” ()).

d 703, 708-09 (Minn. 2005) (affirming palpable-unfitness determination where parent failed to protect her children from abuse by others in the past and refused to recognize her responsibility to protect her child from abuse).

of T.A.A., -09 (Minn. 2005).

of T.A.A., n.2 (Minn. 2005) (“T he district court adopted the county’s proposed findings verbatim.

See In re 5 Children of T.A.A., A.M.C., d at 663.

of T.A.A., n.3 (Minn. 2005).

d 648, 663 (Minn. App. 2018).

of T.A.A., (quotation omitted).

7 When reviewing a TPR decision, we determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the county made “reasonable efforts” to “reunite the family.”

see also, (stating that, in the context of children who are not Indigenous Americans, “the petitioner must show clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parent with the child.”).

We determine “whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” d 703, 708 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

“This court gives deference to a [district] court’s decision to terminate parental rights but closely inquires into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it is clear and convincing.”

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

Prefe rred practice is “for a [district] court to independently develop its own findings” to “reflect the court’s independent assessment of the evidence.” n.2 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

1(b) (2020) (providing that any one of the nine statutory grounds may be a basis for termination)

We review a n order terminating parental rights “to deter mine whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria and whether those findings are suppor ted by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” d 703, 708 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted) .