Cited by

1(b)(5), and encompasses circumstances in which “the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm,”

See, (explaining district courts may terminate parental rights on the basis that a child suffered egregious harm while in the parent’s care even when the parent did not personally inflict the harm or was not physically present when the harm occurred ); (Mi

d 356, 360 (Minn. 2008).

To terminate parental rights based on “egregious harm” where the parent has not personally inflicted the egregious harm, “a court must find that the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm.”

“ [A] child can be considered to have experienced egregious harm ‘in the parent’s care’ even though the parent was not physically present at the time the harm occurred.”

When the subject parent has not personally inflicted egregious harm, the district court “must find that the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm.”

The supreme court has held that “‘in the parent’s care’ should not be limited to the physical presence of a parent at the time egregious harm occurs.”