Cited by

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

d actively demonstrate her or his ability to successfully parent a child .’” See J.W., d at 446 (quoting D.L.R.D., d at 251); review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011); D.L.D., d at 544; -56 (Minn. App. 2007); W.L.P., d at 710.

A district court’s termination decision must be “based on evidence concerning the conditions that exist at the time of termination.” (quotation omitted).

d 548, 554 (Minn. App. 2007); In re the Child of A.S.

1(b)(4 ), a parent is presumed to be palpably unfit “upon a showing that the parent’s parental rights to one or more other children were 8 involuntarily terminated.” This court interpreted that to mean that a parent has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to “allow a factfinder to find parental fitness.” (emphasis in the original).

A district court’s decision regarding a termination must be “based on evidence concerning the conditions that exist at the time of termination.” (quotation omitted).

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

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

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

A district court’s decision in a termination proceeding must be “based on evidence concerning the conditions that exist at the time of termination.” (quotation omitted).

d 247, 251 (Minn. 2003); -55 (Minn. App. 2007) (concluding that the parent did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding of parental fitness where the parent attended such classes but struggled to feed the child and read the child’s cues).

When the statutory presumption of palpable unfitness is established by a prior involuntary transfer of custody, the burden shifts to the parent to rebut the presumption by “affirmatively and actively demonstrat[ing] her or his ability to successfully parent a child.” (quotation omitted).

review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

(holding that, although the district court erred in finding additional statutory grounds for terminating parental rights not alleged by the county, “because at least one statutory ground supports termination in this case, .

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

(“The court generally will not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and it will not consider matters that were not produced and received in evidence in the district court.”); see also Illinois Farmers Ins.

T.D., (holding that parent waived appellate review of evi-dentiary ruling by failing to object until post-trial motion).

See id.; *446 see also J.L.L., d at 412 ; review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007).

“Under these circumstances, the parent has the burden *544 of rebutting the presumption of palpable unfitness.” d at 250

But the court of appeals has expressly held that a court cannot base the termination of parental rights “on a ground that is not stated in a petition to terminate rights.”