Cited by

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) .

First, the district court must, and did, conduct an “independent assessment of the evidence and this is best accomplished by the district court exercising its own skill and judgment in drafting its findings.” n.2 (Minn. 2005).

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

court’s decision to terminate parental rights if at least one statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the best interests of the child , so long as the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family if reasonable efforts were required

(“In reviewing a decision to terminate parental rights, the appellate court dete rmines whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support at least one statutory ground for termination.”).

–09 (Minn. 2005) (noting that a parent’s failure to protect a child from abusive adults provided clear and convincing evidence that the parent was palpably unfit).

(“Only one ground must be pr ove[d] for termination to be ordered.”).

n.3 (Minn. 2005) (“Only one ground must be proved for termination to be ordered.”).

2 An individual ’s parental rights may be terminated if she has “substantially, continuously, or repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed .

(citations omitted); see, e.g., In re Welfare of Children of S.E.P.

“Only one ground must be proven for termination to be ordered.”

In re Children 8 of T.A.A.

“If statutory grounds for termination exist and termination is in the best interests of the child, the appellate court then determines whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.”

We give deference to the district court’s ultimate conclusion, and review that conclusion under an abuse-of-discretion standard, In re Welfare of J.K.T.

14 n.3 (Minn. 2005) (declining to address all of the grounds for termination relied on by the district court).

We will affirm the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights if at least one statutory ground is sup ported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the child’s best interests, and, where required, th e county made reasonable efforts to reunite the parent with the child

(“Only one ground must be proven for termination to be ordered.”).

n.3 (Minn. 2005) (declining to analyze other statutory bases after affirming on one statutory basis).

Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

8 (2016) (requiring district courts to make specific findings that reasonable efforts at reunification were either made or were not required under Minn. Stat. § 260.012 (2016))

(“Only one ground must be proven for termination to be ordered.”).