Cited by

of T.R., (quotation omitted).

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

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

of T.R., d 656, 660 (Minn. 2008).

A fa ctual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “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., d 656, 660 (Minn. 2008).

of T.R., (quotation omitted) .

of T.R., (quotation omitted).

of T.R., (quotation omitted).

In an order determining the merits of a petition to terminate parental rights, a district court ordinarily must “make findings and conclusions as to the provision of reasonable efforts.” Minn. Stat. § 260.012(h) (2020); -66 (Minn. 2008).

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

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (applying this standard on appeal from an involuntary TPR).

of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (applying this standard on appeal from an involuntary TPR).

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

-66 (Minn. 2008).1 That subsection states, "Reasonable efforts to prevent placement and for rehabilitation and reunification are always required except upon a determination by the court that a petition has been filed stating a prima facie case that" one of seven conditions exists.

justifying cessation of such efforts.” (Mi nn.

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

of T.R., (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) ; see In re Commitment of Kenney , -22 (Minn. 2021) ( “[t]he clear-error standard of review is familiar because it applies across so many contexts”).

C. Mother’s mental health and her ability to care for son Mental illness alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights; instead, the county must prove a parent’s mental illness is directly connected to her inability to parent and will be “permanently detrimental to the welfare of the child.”

A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008) 3 (quotation omitted).

-61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

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).

(stating 8 that court -ordered case plan is presumed reasonable) .2 And our review of the record confirms the district court’s determinations as to the reasonableness of the agency’s actions with respect to both services.

-61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

-61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

-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).

Appellate courts “review the district court’s findings to determine whet her they address the statutory criteria for termination of parental rights and are not clearly erroneous.”

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

d 656, 660 -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

“[T]he nature of the services which constitute ‘reasonable efforts’ depends on the problem presented.” ( ).

“We review the district court’s findings to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination of parental rights and are not clearly erroneous.”

“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) (quota tion omitted).