Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Welfare of J.W., 807 N.W.2d 441.

50 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. A. K., F/K/A B. A. K. and … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When considering a petition to terminate parental rights, the district court “should rely not primarily on past history, but to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent’s inability to care for his or her child.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. L. F. and D. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
11 “Termination on the ground of palpable unfitness requires a petitioner to prove ‘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.’” (quoting T.R., d at 661), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. V. M. and J. R. M., Parents 8 N.W.3d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. V. M. and J. R. M., Parents 8 N.W.3d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(concluding that the parent’s evidence, “if believed,” would support a finding that the parent was not palpably unfit and that the evidence was therefore sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
, A22-1794 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-47 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. L. P. and J. A. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 46 (Minn. App. 2018) ( first - 38 (Minn. 2014); and then - 47 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: N. U. M. and R. E. F., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-47 (Minn. App. 2011) (concluding that the parent’s evidence, “if believed,” would support a finding that the parent was not palpably unfit, and that the evidence was therefore sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Children of: S. L. L. and M. J. T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 137 (-46 (Minn. App. 2011)).
A21-1683 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-47 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. H., Custodial Parent, K. H., Stepparent, and … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a parent introduces such evidence, the statutory “presumption is rebutted and has no further function at the trial.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. R. K., J. J. A., and Any … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Jan.
L. M. P., Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 441, 445 (Minn. App. 2011) (holding that, to rebut a presumption of palpable unfitness to be a parent, a party must produce evidence to rebut or meet the presumption).
A20-0556 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- 46 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. R. D., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
( review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. B.-M. and A. A., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-47 (Minn. App. 2011) (concluding that the parent’s evidence, “if believed,” would support a finding that she was not palpably 9 unfit, and that the evidence was therefore suffi cient to rebut the statutory presumption), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. F. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But this is a rebuttable presumption and “imposes on a parent the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. V. and S. V., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Termination on the ground of palpable unfitness requires a petitioner to prove ‘specifi c 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.’” (quoting T.R., d at 661), review denied (Minn. Jan.
A18-2070 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review 15 denied (Minn. Jan.
A18-1659 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“This presumption is a rebuttable presumption.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re Welfare of K. L. W. 924 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Welfare of K. L. W. 924 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
446 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
A18-1027 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. A. K. and J. M. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(-46 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: H. N. N., and T. D. J. P., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. P. and C. G., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. K., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. G.-A. and Unknown Father, Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. M., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The presumption is rebuttable, review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. M. L., a/k/a J. M. W. and … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(alteration omitted) (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. M. J. and L. W. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Welfare of 9 Child of J.W., review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. A. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. A. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“This presumption is a rebuttable presumption.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. C. T. and L. L. T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. C. T. and L. L. T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
For example, in -47 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. K. W. and G. B. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. K. W. and G. B. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: W. J. C., III, and G. A. C., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: W. J. C., III, and G. A. C., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A parent “must do more than engage in services and must demonstrate that his or her parenting abilities have improved.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. N. L.-N. and A. L. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. N. L.-N. and A. L. P., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 –47 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. C. and M. C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. L. C. and M. C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1(b)(4), “a parent must introduce evidence that would justify a finding of fact that he or she is not palpably unfit.” d 441, 445 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted) (citing Minn. R. Evid.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. M. R. and T. P. D., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. M. R. and T. P. D., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
s leading to the out-of-home placement had been corrected and had not complied with the case plan; affirmed a termination of the rights of a parent on grounds of palpable unfitness where the parent, like appellant, would be unable to care for or meet the needs of the child for the reasonably foreseeable future; and -43 (Minn. App. 2011) concerned a parent whose rights to six older children had been terminated and was therefore presumptively palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relati
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S v. Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S v. Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. S. C. and D. E. D., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. S. C. and D. E. D., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-46 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that whether this burden has been satisfied is determined on a case-by-case basis), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A.N.T. and J.W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A.N.T. and J.W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotation and citations omitted).