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. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Best Interests of the Child An appellate court will affirm a district court’s termination of 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.” (citations and quotations 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).

“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 “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 “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 4 supported by the evidence as a whole.” -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

involved a county’s failure to show that it had made reasonable efforts to reunite the parent and child, which is not an issue here; reversed this court’s decision and reinstated the district court decision terminating the rights of a paren

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.”

A finding is clearly erroneous when “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).

-91 (Minn. 1985) (affirming termination of low-intellect father’s parental rights to his special-needs children when “father could not grasp even the most basic parenting skills” and “[w]hat appearances the father has made in the children’s lives has produced trauma”); (stating that a parent’s rights may be terminated for palpable unfitness when the parent’s mental limitations “directly affect[s] the ability to parent”).

(“[S]imply testing 9 for substance abuse, without more, is not realistic under the circumstances to rehabilitate a parent who, that testing shows, suffers from chemical dependency issues.”).

(citations and quotations omitted).1 Mother challenges both the district court’s findings of fact and its conclusion that the child was neglected and in foster care.

A finding is clearly erroneous when “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.” In re 4 Welfare of Children of T.R., -61 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

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

A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous unless 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).