Cited by

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.”

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

When seekin g to terminate parental rights for palpable unfitness, the petitioner must prove “a consistent pattern of specific conduct or specific conditions existing at the time of the hearing that appear will continue for a prolonged, indefinite period and that are permanently detrimental to the welfare of the child.” (quotation omitted).

d 656, 661 (Minn. 2008).

“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).

“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).

But what constitutes re asonable efforts depends 10 on the problem presented, and a parent’s incarceration may change what qualifies as “reasonable” in working towards reunification.

“A fi nding 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).

–62 (Minn. 2008); –91 (Minn. 1985); In re W elfare of Children of B.M.

“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).

d 656, 660 (Minn. 2008).

-61 (Minn. 2008) (stating that appellate courts will defer to the district court’s factual findings so long as they address the statutory criteria and are not clearly erroneous); L.A.F., d at 396.

A findin g 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).

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

“[S]ubstance or alcohol use alone does not render a parent palpably unfit; rather, the county must demonstrate that the parent’s substance or alcohol use is of a nature and duration that renders the parent unable, for the reasonably foreseeable future, to care appropriately for the child’s ongoing needs.” In re C hildren of T.R ., d 656, 663 (Minn. 2008) (reversing termination where “the district court made no findings suggesting that there was a causal connection between [the parent’s] alcohol

We will affirm the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights if at least one statutory ground is sup ported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the child’s best interests, and, where required, th e county made reasonable efforts to reunite the parent with the child

“[An ap pellate court] defer[s] to the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights.”

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

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

“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) (quotation omitted).

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

and its decision to terminate parental rights for abuse of discretion.

“ 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.” (quotation omitted).

A factual 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).

A factual 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).

d 656, 660 (Minn. 2008), and its decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion.

“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).

In re Children of 3 T.R., .