Cited by

of T.R., -66 (Minn. 2008).

of T.R., (quotation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either 7 manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” - 61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Mother cites as support.

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

As the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized, a county’s expectation that a parent address the cause of a child’s removal without providing relevant services to support that effort is “especially daunting.” See In Welfare of re Children of T.R., (quotation omitted).

of T.R., and here, the county prioritized addressing mother’s substance abuse and mental health before getting her back into a home on her own.

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

of T.R., d 656, 664 (Minn. 2008) (“[T]he nature of the services which constitute ‘reasonable efforts’ depends on the problem presented.” (quotation omitted)).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

(stating that “the nature of the services which constitute ‘reasonable efforts’ depends on the problem presented” (quotation omitted)).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

decide for itself that further efforts are futile.” –66 (Minn. 2008).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

“[T]he nature of services which constitute reasonable efforts depends on the problem presented.” (quotation omitted).

of T.R., (quotation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” –61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

(“The [c]ounty may not unilaterally determine that reasonable efforts to rehabilitate a parent and reunify a parent and child would be futile; the [c]ounty must make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate a parent and reunify a parent and child until such time as the district court determines that rea

He cites in which the supreme court stated that “our case law suggests that alcohol or substance use does not render a parent palpably unfit in the absence of a causal connection between that substance use and the parent’s inability to care for the child.” Id.

This case is more akin to

of T.R., - 61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

–61 (Minn. 2008) (stating that a finding is clearly erroneous if it is either “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tonka 25 The district court acknowledged that one of the volunteer drive

Likewise, an appellate court may affirm “if at least one statutory ground alleged in the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence.”