Cited by

See In (determining that parent forfeited review of an issue not raised in district court in a TPR proceeding); (stating “[a] reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by t

(“We defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility.”).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

See In 18 re Welfare of T.D., (stating “[w]e defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

d 548, 555 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

“We defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.” see M.M., d at 239 (stating a district court’s witness-credibility findings “provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision”).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

However, the district court may only take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute when the fact is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” (quotation omitted); Minn. R. Evid.

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

See, (affirming the termination of parental rights in part because service-providers explained that mother “struggle[d] to read her daughter’s cues and react appropriately”), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

(“We defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

In re Welfare of Child 9 of T.D., rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

was not particularly credible, the court determined that appellant “did not meet the burden of proof necessary for an [OFP].” It is well settled that appellate courts “defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

(noting that appellate courts defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness’ credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence[,]” and rely on the district court’s evaluation of the testimony presented at trial), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

(), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

(stating the district court’s determination must be based on evidence that the conditions giving rise to the termination will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

Finally, this court defers to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

“We de fer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

We defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness cr edibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

We defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

We defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

We begin by recognizing that we must de fer to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.” (“Considerable deferen ce is due to the district court’ s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Mar.

We will defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

We defer to the district court’s “determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

(“The court must make its decision based on 8 evidence concerning th e conditions that exist at the time of termination and it must appear that the conditions giving rise to th e termination will conti nue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.” (quotation omitted)).

It must appear that the conditions giving rise to the TPR will continue for a “prolonged, indeterminate period.” .

d 548, 553 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007); review denied (Minn. Nov.

To the contrary, the district court found that appellant’s testimony was “frequently incredible” and that she “displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of how to protect Child 2 from additional harm.” (“We defer to the district court ’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence.”).

d 548, 554 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

We have stated that “ a party may not raise an issue for the first time in a new-trial motion.” d 548, 553 (Minn. App. 2007) (concluding that challenge to judici al notice was raised too late, where party knew about motion but did not contest the judicial-notice issue until after 2 Appellant seems to argue that, because he brought his takings claims under both the U.S.

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).