Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Children of T.A.A., 702 N.W.2d 703.

171 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. D. B., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
see also Minn. Stat. § 260.012(f), (h) (2012); Minn. R. Juv.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. M. A. and M. R. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. M. A. and M. R. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. S. H. and X. L. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. S. H. and X. L. H., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
see Minn. Stat. §§ 260.012; 260C.301, subd.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. S. and M. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. S. and M. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he district court is required to ‘make findings and conclusions as to the provision of reasonable efforts’ or must find that the provision of services or additional services would be futile.” d 703, 709 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 260.012(c) (2004), which is now Minn. 7 Stat. § 260.012(h) (2012)).
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 the Children of K.S.F. 823 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Children of K.S.F. 823 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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
d with broad discretionary powers....”) (quotation omitted); -30 (Minn.App.2009) (repeatedly invoking the discretion referred to in Booth in a CHIPS appeal); (stating that appellate courts “defer to the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights”); (stating that “[t]his court gives deference to a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights”).
Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin 797 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2011
Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin 797 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2011
Power Ass’n, , 380 n. 1 (Minn.2006) (stating that adopting one party’s proposed findings “does not allow the parties or a reviewing court to determine the extent to which the court’s decision was independently made”); , 707 n. 2 (Minn.2005) (“[T]he district court’s findings should reflect the court’s independent assessment of the evidence and this is best accomplished by the district court exercising its own skill and judgment in drafting its findings.”).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of A.I. 779 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of the Children of A.I. 779 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
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
In we concluded that there was “no causal relationship established between T.A.A.’s drug use and her inability to parent her children,” despite the fact that she tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamines more than four times during a six-month period.
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.P. 747 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.P. 747 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2008
1(a) (2006) (“To be proved at trial, allegations of a petition alleging a child to be in need of protection or services must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”); (“In reviewing a decision to terminate parental rights, the appellate court determines whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support at least one statutory ground for termination ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ The district court made several findings and conclusions related to Mother’s lack of regard for K.L.P.’s