Cited by

of M.L.A., see also In re Welfare 4 of Child.

of M.L.A., (explaining that a “manifest injustice certainly includes coercing a parent to admit to a [termination] petition by use of a threat that not admitting to the petition would result in a placement of the children contrary to their best interests”).

of M.L.A., (explaining that a “manifest injustice certainly includes coercing a parent to admit to a [termination] petition by use of a threat that not admitting to the petition would result in a placement of the children contrary to their best interests”).

of M.L.A., (“We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by di scharging mother ’s appointed counsel, without cause, before the conclusion of the action in district court .”).

We “review a district court’s decision on a motion to vacate an order or judgment for an abuse of discretion.”

(holding that the district court abused its discretion by discharging court -appointed counsel, without cause, before conclusion of district court proceedings); see also Minn. R. Juv.

(stating that a district court does not err when it declines to apply ICWA where there is no evidence that the children are eligible for membership in any Indian tribe).

4 Generally, “appellate courts review a district court’s decision on a motion to vacate an order or judgment for an abuse of discretion.”

We have held that a district court does not err when it declines to apply ICWA where “there is no evidence that the children are eligible for membership in any Indian tribe.”

“Generally, appellate courts review a district court’s decision on a motion to vacate an order or judgment for an abuse of discretion.” (stating that supreme court reviews district court’s decision to deny relief under Minn. R. Civ.