Cited by

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. 5 Here, t he district court determined in pretrial proceedings that, because no child was alleged to be in need of protection in this proceeding, the requirement that the social service agency make reasonable reunification efforts did not apply.

-61 (Minn. 2008) (applying this standard on appeal from a n involuntary TPR).

A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are clearly erroneous, –61 (Minn. 2008), or if it misapplies the law

See Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(1)-(7); (stating a county must provide services until the district court determines “that reasonable efforts at reunification are no longer required”).

5 Appellate courts “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 cle arly 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).

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

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

A factual finding is clearly 4 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).

“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).

Because mother’s and father’s arguments are nearly identical and because the majority of the factual findings pertain to both, we will concurrently analyze them and highlight any differences.

“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 and citation 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 burden under this subdivision is “onerous ,” and requires t he movant “[to] prove a consistent pattern of specific conduct or specific conditions existing at the time of the hearing that, it appears, will continue for a prolonged, indefinite period and that are permanently detrimental to the welfare of the child.” d 656, 661 (Minn. 2008).

The particular services constituting reasonable efforts “depend[] on the problem presented.” (quotation omitted) ; see In re Welfare of Child of 4 Mother does not challenge the best-interests determination on appeal.

(citations and quotations omitted); -61 (Minn. 2008); d at 385; d at 901.

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

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

The nature of the services 6 that constitute reasonable efforts “depends on the problem presented.” (quotation omitted).

Termination of Mother’s Parental Rights Is in the Child’s Best Interests This court will affirm a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights if “at least one statutory ground alleged in the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” (citation omitted).

(stating that a county must seek “a court determination that reasonable efforts at reunification are no longer required”).

A finding of fact 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).

In re Welfare of Children of T.R., 5 -61 (Minn. 2008).

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

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

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

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

(holding that specific conditions at the time of the hearing are the focus of palpable unfitness inquiry).

–61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

–61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Best-Interests Determination We will affirm a termination decision if “at least one statutory ground alleged in the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence and termin ation of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” (citations omitted).

A f a c t u a l f i n d i n g i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s “ i f i t i s e i t h e r manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not r easonably supported by the evide nce as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008).

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

Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subds.1(b)(5), 8(1) (2018)

-61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted), as modified on denial of reh’g (July 2, 2008).

in support of her argument.

We “review the district court’s findings to determine whether they 11 address the statutory criteria for termination of parental rights and are not clearly erroneous.”